The iPlayer is a concept which should "just work." The BBC are a massive corporation in the UK, and once led the way in both content and technological developments in television entertainment. There were the BBC cameras, Dr Who, and all sorts of wonderful programmes coming out of Television Centre. Since then bits and pieces have been sold off, and more content was being bought from independent studios.

Then, BBC Future Media & Technology started to take off. In the digital world they created Dirac, the open and royalty-free codec, designed for transmitting HD content without encryption. They also started the development of the iPlayer which enables anyone in the UK to access BBC programmes to "watch again." This is subject to a fair-use policy, and a 30 day download limitation.

The flash-based implementation of the BBC iPlayer was fairly well received, as it allowed the iPlayer to be used on both Windows, *NIX, Linux and Apple based devices - anything that was supported by Adobe Flash. The BBC later dropped their Desktop version (which was implemented for Windows and Macs, but not Linux) in favour of the flash-based one - as it meant it required programming to only one interface - flash.

Good decision BBC.

Unfortunately, now they are developing applications for all sorts of devices. Where they saved themselves from having to program for three separate interfaces by no longer coding Desktop clients for Windows/Macs/Linux - they are now creating lots of more work to be 'cool and trendy' and 'Web 3.0' as they program for specialist devices like the iPhone platform, or Android.

If there were only a platform-agnostic way of delivering the content to all these devices, without having to program for each one individually.

Well there is, it's called HTML5 - I sure hope that out of all this mess the BBC at least spend some time coding for that interface. In terms of target markets, HTML5 should be supported of 100% of the devices accessing the iPlayer. I'm not saying the BBC shouldn't develop for these platforms - but there are better ways to do it. The writers of get_iplayer wrote a brilliant wrapper for linux - so why not allow freelance developers to put the iPlayer on the iPhone, Android .etc - rather than doing it all in house. That's more Web 2.0.

My background is not typical of a Systems Administrator. I started my life in IT as a marketing intern, the some time doing basic server administration and Desktop support; to now find myself working fully on Linux Servers. It's a long way from the Psychology and Business degree that I graduated with back in June '07.

I've never been a bedroom hacker, despite very much wanting to be. The majority of my time spent learning has been during waking hours, in the office. I've had a few projects that I've taken home with me, but due to my limited background, I found myself limited to fixing things other people had written, rather than writing stuff from scratch. I'd mostly learnt how it shouldn't be done, rather than how it should be done.

Ironically, this has meant that until now I've been fixing other people's problems, tidying up others designs, and adding my voice to conversations pointing out logical discrepancies and extending other people's ideas. This is one of the great freedoms that Open Source software has given me - I don't have to write anything from scratch - someone else has already done it for me.

However, I'm acutely aware that sooner or later my weaknesses are going to land me in hot water. It may be a casual observation, but most of the time I come across something that completely baffles me, I'll come back to it in a couple of weeks after either doing a bit of research on it or playing with something similar - and I get to understand it. There have been a few moments when I've looked back at decisions I've made and in the meantime have new knowledge that would have made the decision a "no-brainer", when at the time it seemed like a 50/50 split.

The more I experience these moments though, the more I realise that it's all about growth, and experience. I'm sure there are many CS graduates or other programmers out there who have got certain gaps in their knowledge that get filled over time. I'm sure there are many who are going through the same angst that I am, wondering "am I good enough to be doing this.. have I missed something?" In hindsight I'd say that's a brilliant attitude to have, because being overconfident about one's ability is likely to end you up in an even bigger spot of bother.

I guess the key is to never fool yourself into thinking that you've learnt enough. I've got a couple of books in the post, covering 'Pragmatic Programming' and 'Design Patterns' - I'm sure they'll provide me with the material I need to keep plugging my gaps, and improving my technical thinking, whether I end up moving into programming rather than Systems Administration, or some other field entirely.

A few years back, in 2004, Peter Gabriel and Brian Eno launched a Musicians' Union called Mudda to stand up for the rights of the musicians who were having their music stolen in the 'post-Napser' age of p2p downloads.  One of the taglines of Peter Gabriel's mission was the title of a confidential debate, How to compete with Free? As time has moved on the music industry has gained a few scalps by suing many organisations and individuals proactively sharing music over these peer to peer networks - the most recent casuatly being the Pirate Bay.

The initial victim of peer to peer sharing was the Music industry, but as bandwidth and disk space have got much cheaper, it has enabled users to share films and much larger files just as easily as downloading mp3s in the early days of Napster.  Rather than the industries going into meltdown, they've come up with innovative ways to get users accessing their information.  LoveFilm, Sporify and Last.fm are all solutions to the intial problem, however, as yet theyre not seen as 'perfect' solutions.  Too much power has been given to the consumer - the only problem is that it's only the industries affected who see this as a problem.

At the weekend's festivities at the Hop Farm Festival, I was lucky enough to watch 2 Many DJs play a set on the Sunday night.  Up til they I'd always been one for listening to pretty 'mature' music; mature as in age rather than maturity.  I grrew up with most of my Dad's music - and it's a good job he had good taste! :)   I'd never really 'gotten' the dance scene - loops and stuff were things that I did as a teen messing around on Software such as Sibelieus, Capella and Voyetra Midi Orchestrator.  Writing a drum beat and adding a synth track on top didn't sppear to be so hard.  However, with 2 Many DJs - these guys were remixing classic and modern tunes, and making them sound awesome together.  It wasn't just the music they were mixing, but they also had a monty-python-esque video screen with animated remixes of the original album covers blending into each other.

2 Many DJs have caught the essence of community and 'Creative Commons' in their approach to producing music.  They can use other people's tracks and beats in the way that software architects use difference software packages - put them all together and come up with their own unique packages.  It's a bit like lego - the blocks are all the same - but it's the way they are arranged that makes them unique.  If someone's already designed a car and you design a garage - doesn't it make sense for you to share your ideas to come up with a better model?  Needless to say I was looking at their music differently.

So when it comes to making money - if 2 Many DJs are simply remixing other people's work - where does the money change hands.  They remixed Michael Jackson, The Gossip, AC/DC, Daft Punk, Queen, amongst others - so how do these artists get paid?

When it came to the end of the night, I asked a mate who was familiar with 2 Many DJs how to get their tracks - can I buy a CD, or what if I want to do my own remixes.  His respose was that people simply download their music.  They like people remixing their stuff and want to hear more music made - so they actively support downloading via what most would say were illegal methods.  I need to get more information on whether this is 100% true, or just a 'laissez-faire' approach by the band rather than a pro-active promotion - but if it is true it's sure pretty.

So if 2 Many DJs can get round and survive giving stuff away free, then it's not a business model unique to the 'Open Source' world.  2 Many DJs have had plenty of success doing it, and get asked to headline at Gigs all over the world. When it comes to programmers, the high life of programming infront of thousands of people dancing to your programming isn't really a viable option (unless you're Air). So Open Source programmers have to sell 'free'.

That takes me back to the original question: How do you sell 'Free'

Since 2004 I've been successfully using Open Source Software to complete essays, do accounts, run websites, and update my mp3 player and listen to music.  I've been able to do practically everything I ever did using Windows - though much of it has involved alot of effort and a steep learning curve.  As time has gone on, the operating system I use, Ubuntu, has seriously improved its ease of use - up to a point when I can do a fresh install of ubuntu and know that I won't have to spent a few hours tweaking sound & video settings getting everything to work.  I know I can get it installed and all up to date in under an hour - and 90% of the software I use is already installed.  It also enables me to know the price of my computer.  Whereas before I was counting the cost in £s, I now count it in hours.

The problem is, that the majority of people count in £s.  OpenOffice.org may well be free, but thye've got to download and run an exe file - or even worse work out how to open a zip file.  Sure - to the intiated it's easy, but to the uninitiated they may just as well go and buy a CD and put it in the right hole for a little paperclip to tell them what to do.  That's life.

Free needs to be sold as simple.  We're getting there - but the truth of the matter is that people don't care.  As Rory Cellan-Jones commented earlier today regarding Google's Annoucement of 'Google Chrome OS'

but my point is that most people never choose to install an OS. they just live in a windows world. Only sophisticates choose..

That's the truth.  As much as people may like to choose Ubuntu or any other OS, to convert people they need to make a proactive decision.  Apple have solved that problem by generating some kind of cult following.  I'm not sure how they managed it - but the perception is that macs are easy and cool.  People don't mind the difficulty (or the price), when they know that the perceived view is that it's easy. No one wants to be seen as a fool.  Linux distributions are still seen as the realm of the geek, therefore it's not painful to claim it's too difficult.  When you're selling free - it's easy if people already want it.  If people don't want it already, then why should they want to want it?

I can't see Gnugle Linux (as I'm sure many of the FSF-ers would have liked it to be known as) being a massive break from the traditional Linux Distribution.  Microsoft probably think the same thing - Google might have a good team, but they can't design an operating system from a blank slate.  Google have already said they'll be using the Linux Kernel.  However, what they can do is implement HTML5 and CSS3 to enable the browser to draw.  Up til now, adding curves to a box in HTML meant using 4 pre-drawn graphics (or fewer if you were clever) - however, it still required a graphic to be placed upon a page - rather than drawn. Google are coming into the frame just as the 'browser' take over from the operating system.. and right now they're creating a hybrid as a means of migration from OS-based computing to browser-based computing.

Will Google OS 'Sell'?

If people want it - yes.  Right now Google have got to focus on marketing this as a viable alternative to the status quo - something that the traditional Open Source vendors have been unable to do through lack of capital, and a lack of ability to stand up to the false claims made by Microsoft.  However, the bigger battle is happening behind the scenes.  As was seen with OLPC v. Intel, the majority of decisions are made behind closed doors where representatives of Open Source Communities have never really stepped.  Google have been there before and have that extra arrow to their bow.  I just hope they don't turn into MS 2.0 in their quest for domination.

I'm looking to improve the way in which IT is used by the charity we're partnered with, and by the charity I work for directly.  Up til now there hasn't been much thought put into the organisation other than "We must backup" - which is a good enough place to start.. but not a means of providing a decent enough infrastructure to expand.

As regards the data we're storing on our own Laptops - I'm going to be moving much of the 'archive' data across to a NAS, which will rsync with remote servers for backup.  This seems like a sensible enough solution, and will a decent folder hierarchy is something that the guys working with me will understand.

However, the more complicated side of things is moving stuff which has traditionally been done on paper across to a computer-based system.  The initial period will be a hybrid of both paper and electronic records - so the two databases need to be congruent.  From my perspective, this makes it a bit easier as I already know all the fields required, and can link the field relationally where I can see a direct relationship.

My initial (and current) thought is to write a couple of django modules to deal with the database, as it's what I'm more familiar with regarding linking fields across multiple tables.  Using the django-admin modules, I can already see how much of the system would look.  However, there's also the case that this database will probably become the backend for more and more as the charity grows.

Currently we have paper records of all the orphanages.  Which couple are in charge, and a list of the 10 children in that home.  With the children moving between homes occasionally, linking the child to a particular home for a given time period seems the best way to store this data.

Currently, if a child falls ill then we have a 1st line health-care worker who takes the required details over the phone.  There are a few boxes that are filled in, and I'd like to be able to link this information with a child in the database.  This should be easy enough.  The system would then auto-email the healthcare worker after a given time (related to the feedback from the doctors regarding the illness) so that they can do a follow-up call.

I'm going to be working with a couple of doctors to make sure that the information we keep fulfils the medical needs - however, much of the stuff I want to collect will need encrypting, and I intend to make sure that the ACLs are set up correctly from the start.

I'm pretty wary regarding the application's security - however, I don't intend to implement it outside of our LAN, and should remote access be required, then a VPN can be set up to remote sites to allow access.

My questions are:

• Do you think that the approach I'm taking is a sensible one -as to keep the system as simple as possible and easy for both me and the Doctors I'm working with to understand?
• Do you know of a system which can already do this for me?
• Would you be interested in helping out with a system - it will be published under GPLv2?

Thanks for your time, and I look forward to your responses.

I thought I best write a short post on the announcement given on Wednesday, and pushed by Tom Watson MP - that the government are now going to be proactively supporting Open Source to lower costs in government.

The policy document is fairly basic to read, and fails to go into massive depth regarding what actions are actually going to be taken.  However, it is a 'policy' document, rather than an implementation document.  All change is a migration (you've got to be someplace else to move towards something) and I expect the migration to take some time.  However, there are some good noises coming out of the government - so here's hoping.

One of the things I've been most impressed with, is the aggregation of users comments as a method to gauge reaction to the announcement.  Using a netvibes page, the government are collating information from blogs, microblogging sites, and new sites, using the #ukgovoss tag.  It's a neat method, and one I hope they continue to leverage in the future.

However, the government have talked about collaboration and more 'open' co-operation before - the 'e-gif' framework.  Whilst essentially a good idea, it was also a prescribed way of forcing collaboration.  Hopefully this new method will help develop 'dynamic' collaboration.  Rather than prescribe a set of centrallised APIs, allow the community (of users/companies/officials) to help use their skills to develop methods over time.

One of the things that the document also touched on, but to a lesser extent as the 'freedom' of data. It recommends the use of ODF as a format for storing government data.  As a member of the OpenDocument Fellowship (albeit a very hands-off member) - I fully support the benefits of storing data in an 'open format' and no in a format which require reverse engineering for access - no matter how well the format has been reverse engineered.

Matt Asay recently wrote about the importance of Freedom of Information after the recent debacle regarding the change to Facebook's Terms of Service.  The thing that was most shocking about that episode was not the TOS themselves, but the apathy of the majority of users.  General End Users won't get pent up and passionate about freedom of data - it's a geeky topic.  However, like research into lower emissions, government should protect its citizens from the potential threat of closed data.

At the end of the day, it's a great announcement by the government in terms of increasing transparency in governement.  However, the point is moot if the current government continue to approve acts such as the one mentioned only a couple of days ago, preventing citizens taking photos of their army and police force.  As Francis Bacon so elaborately put it:

He that gives good advice, builds with one hand; he that gives good counsel and example, builds with both; but he that gives good admonition and bad example, builds with one hand and pulls down with the other.

I don't admonish Tom Watson MP for his efforts regarding this policy document, however, there is a bigger question to be asked regarding recent events.  Hopefully I shall be proved wrong, and the independent counter terrorism review shall soon restore the level of freedom that my parents enjoyed.