Slashdot Mirror
Would an Ad-Sponsored OS/Desktop Work for OSS?
Gentu asks: "OSNews runs a quick blurb and poll on the idea of an ad-sponsored OS or desktop. What is interesting is that the answer is a bit hard, as embarrassing commercialism is against the freedom of Open Source Software, while on the other hand, it is a handy and easy way to get funding for your favorite open source project. What does Slashdot think about the issue? Which is more important: the software and how we can continue evolving it by any legal means, or the licensing and philosophy behind it?"
people would just use ad blockers... eventually someone would write one
If It's open sources, what to stop someone from removing the ads? Or am I missing something?
Making something out of nothing : MD5 ("") = d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e
/* DrawAdvertisement(Desktop); */
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
It would work about as well as an ad supported online petfood store.
I don't want free as in beer. I just want free beer.
The first OS project on the ad-sponsored desktop would be the 'GNU Ad-Removal Project for the OS Ad-Sponsored Desktop'.
"Would an Ad-Sponsored OS/Desktop Work for OSS?"
no.
The first thing that I would do is trip out all the ad crap from the source and recompile.
Well, at least until everyone recompiles with all the ad software stripped out.
Being open source, people can do that.
Why doesn't an open source project have the same rights to ads as anyone else?
Why do we make such a big deal about things when an open source project wants to make money? They have to make money somehow, right?
Seems only rational that people will try whatever means necessary to make some cash. We shouldn't find fault with that.
Which is more important: the software and how we can continue evolving it by any legal means, or the licensing and philosophy behind it?
... the larger projects have sponsors or full time developers by companies that use the software, I don't really see a need for something like this.
What's wrong with how OSS software is being written now?
Lot's of people having itches, lots of people scratching them
the adverts would only been seen by people scared to recompile....
Personally I'd sacrifice a weekend to recompile every application minus the adverts...
Well, there's plenty of precedent for this. For example, I'm typing this into a mozilla browser window. Now, mozilla is Open Source, but this page and nearly every other has an ad at the top.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Who needs it, when so many developers are giving their time free of charge? It's a bit like somebody saying "Shareware - isn't that a good idea?", and everybody else going, "Yeah, but FREEWARE! That's even better huh?". In a word - pointless.
Have ad sponsered web sites worked?
I would either avoid such software, or hack it to not display ads. I get really sensitive about programs doing things I don't want them to (ie: controlling my computer). And even then, I am perfectly happy with /bin/sh. (I run NetBSD).
What would you say if there was a way to support your favorite OS or X11 Desktop Environment by agreeing to use an ad-sponsored version? The ad would show *only once*, during the load of the OS
Once when I load? Isn't one of the biggest selling points of *nix in general the high uptime? Now windows...
And who do the (minimal) ad bucks go to anyway? A percentage depending on how many lines of code you contribute?
Complicated, ineffective and annoying. I vote no.
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
Computer Monitor: $350
Desktop PC: $1000
Linux OS: Free
Accidentally punching the monkey while trying to
switch windows: Priceless
-Sean
Free ISPs are a thing of the past, remember Kmarts BlueLight? What's funny though is that AOLers will pay for the ISP service and receive ads. So, will ads be part of an OS. You betcha. I'm sure Redmond is alreay looking into this.
Some people have a way with words, others not have way.
This is exactly what we need, more gratuitous ads splashing across our computers. I love when e-mails pop up explorer windows with advertisements, or when you go to view a web page and 6 more windows pop up.
Heh...this is especially great when a porn e-mail pops up it's own site, and as you desperately try to close it, 15 more porn windows pop up in succession behind it. Invariably, someone will walk up behind you or into you office/cubicle while you are trying to get rid of the porn they will NEVER believe you weren't looking at.
Interestingly enough...they are probably right because you probably did pause for a second and think about that link!
No, I don't like the idea of advertisers putting content on my computer. Regardless of what it can accomplish.
Because that's what it would turn into - better yet WinXP with ads
One of the comments I saw that was really cool was screensaver advertising.
I think most of us who are willing to use our processor time on things like SETI would be willing to let ads run on our system during screensaver time if it would bring any funding to these projects.
Additionally, if there were bonus incentives for actually looking at ads, etc., I would be on it like a heartbeat. I would support it even from my Windows boxes.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
If it wasn't fit enough to survive by other means, what makes you think it becomes worth it if we add ads to the mix.
hell, i didn't even read the editor's comment about the article.
simple answer: NO.
a TV is not a business tool... we accept the commercial breaks because we are using the TV as a leisure device. the second ANYTHING gets in my way from doing my work, i get it off my computer.
i'm assuming an ad-supported OS would make that difficult.
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
The only problem, apart from how utterly annoying it would be, is that online advertising is yet to prove a good method of income. Especially non-intrusive methods of advertising.
Here is a mirror.
The whole POINT of open Source, to me anyway, is to allow constant improvement via removing roadblocks such as security thru obscurity, binaries only, etc. If it doesn't get in the way of tinkering with code I want to tinker with then it's not an issue. Ads are not in of themselves bad; the ads on Slashdot haven't made one bit of difference in my reading habits here.
That said, I doubt that the revenue model they seem to be hinting at in the story is really going to be sa significant source of income. But why not try it.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
This would drive people away from open source. How can you say that your software is better if it sucks more? I know that when I load up my system, I want the best software possible running on it. Not just software with communist ideals.
Just what I need... a KDE or Gnome wallpaper/banner sponsored by Microsoft :)
Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
The ad would show *only once*, during the load of the OS or graphics desktop environment
They'll have to engineer the OS to crash or reboot on a daily basis if they want to make any money, then. Even my Win2K desktop gets rebooted less than once a month, and that's (almost) always because I installed something essential to the system.
It's called "Active Desktop" from this little company in Redmond, Washington. You may have heard of them: Microsoft?
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither!"
In miranda icq we had it so you could set up global hot keys, one of the defaults was for a web search that when to a google box with one banner ad. people freaked... it won't work, you just can't get the people to go along with it. i wouldn't try it unless you want you inbox full of flames and some script kiddies trying to hack you machine.
i think open source users need to calm down a bit.
-- OMFG = Oh My Floatse Goatse
Why use something that pesters me with ads when I can get something that works plenty well enough, pester-free?
Also, how well have advertisement-based Web sites worked out?
And what's next, advertisement-based CDs? A chorus of "Army of One" between the verses of the latest ballet-band's shoveware "hit"?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
As a user I wouldn't mind a 5 or 10 second Ad when I first boot my OS as it states in the article. Much beyond that, I'd have to switch OSes.
As a developer it would depend on whether I really needed funding or not. If this development was being done purely as a hobby, I can't see that I'd need the funding. Of course the users would have to understand it is only a hobby.
If I was programming OSS without any suplimental income I would consider it.
The question is, would advertisors pay for a 5 or 10 second splash when a user first starts their desktop. Most people I know only boot the system once and it stays up and running 24/7 unless there's a crash. (Not very often in Linux) So, would the advertising really pay off for the advertisors?
Ad-supported ANYTHING rarely works. Take a quick look at allAdvantage, or netZERO, or FreePC. When it comes down to it, Advertisers are simply not going to pay to advertise to people who are so desperate for a cheap OS or computer that they will look at ads all day.
Slashdot doesn't think anything... slashdot does not have an opinion. The members of slashdot, however, have a great multitude of opinions. That's why slashdot is so valuable and interesting. So, if you're looking for some univocal answer, you're not going to get it here. Try asking, "What do the members of slashdot think about the issue?"
Otherwise, we get silly comments like "I thought we were boycotting the MPAA/RIAA/Blizzard this week."
Your reality is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. - Baron Munchausen
If they need help, why don't they ask? Something a bit less subtle than a "Donations" link on their page, of course.
If I knew that any of the open source apps I use needed money, I'd donate some money. It would only be fair, because they have all spared me from buying their commercial equivalents (which often exceed $100).
It worked for Kuro5hin. Rusty posted an article about the financial situation and about three days later he had raised $40,000. During the donation drive there was a meter on the top of every page that showed the progress towards $40,000. So, if you donated $50, you could see the meter inch forward maybe a pixel or two.
So, instead of putting "STUFF THE MONKEY'S EYES DOWN ITS THROAT AND EMBALM IT" ads on the splash screen, how about a prominent notice on the website and a K5-style meter?
qslack.com
It certainly wouldn't work for long, as it would only be a matter of minutes before someone downloaded the source, modified it to remove the ad delivery mechanism, and re-distribute the ad-free version.
Not only does OSS make this possible, it encourages it.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Ok... i can accept banners on Slashdot, banners on some softwares, etc, etc, etc... but if someone even dare to put a banner on the top of my Linux desktop ill change my OS the next day!
A bit of off-topic: I dont know why people still thinks banners on sites are profitable. Stanford University ran a study and found that less than 1% of visitors actually click on banners, less than 50% take it serious (some scroll the page down in order to hide the banner).
Fabio - Sumare/Sao Paulo/Brazil/South America/Earth/Solar System/Milky Way/Universe
http://www.morroida.com.br
Pity I have to use IE at work, although installing Mozilla keeps getting more and more tempting...
I've got Opera running (ad supported) browsing Slashdot and various other web sites (ad-supported)
RealPlayer is barking my ear off with ads as I listen to the WRIF (radio station also supported by ads)
I've got AOL Instant Messenger open, there's an advertisment in my buddy list window.
KaZaA has an ad at the bottom of it....
What the hell...what's one more ad going to do?
Has anyone noticed that the modern assumption is that every computer will be connected to the internet? While it may be looking that way I find the assumption a bit unnerving. When will it get to the point when it becomes a requirement?
Ad supported anything on the net is a bad idea I think. Hell, the only ads I pay attention to any more are radio or TV spots, and then only if the seem exceptionally creative or funny. The product is inconsequencial, I buy what fits my needs, and if I need something I go looking for it. Never understood advertising.
Naturally, if you are a bit capable with C/C++, you could freely recompile the OSS project and remove the ad splash screen - but how ethical that would be?
Entirely ethical, I should think. You gave me the code and the open-source license to modify it as I see fit, didn't you?
Let's see...FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Linux...KDE, Gnome, and a dozen other desktops -- all written with "donated" code by talented programmers that ENJOY programming, or an Ad-sponsored OS/Desktop...
missing sig
Q: Which is more important: the software and how we can continue evolving it by any legal means, or the licensing and philosophy behind it?
A: The licensing and philosophy behind it!
I don't see why everyone goes nuts about advertising. I think its ridiculous how everyone whines and moans about ads when they're getting something for free. Heck - I click on Slashdot's ads all the time, just because I know that by doing so I'm keeping the site available FOR FREE. Often, the ads on slashdot and other sites I visit interest me too and are higher quality than the "film girls with our digital camera" X10 crap. I would love to see redhat include an open source ad display app and just let people turn it on - maybe even turn it on by default, but make it easy to turn off, and explain where the money's going to and how much you've generated, etc. It could be a contest to see who generates the most revenue for a project. I'm all for something that lets me SPONSOR OPEN SOURCE PROJECTS FOR FREE SIMPLY BY WATCHING ADS.
$45 per U Colocation Special
Banner ads and nagging popups would only be the beginning. I know we need to support our developers, but if you put one ad on your desktop, it will gradually get bigger, flashier and more distracting. Once people get used to one, someone will say, "why not two?" and eventually multiply into more and more ads, taking up more and more desktop real estate.
I would feel a lot less professional using Linux at work if clients came by and saw banner ads blinking at me all the time.
Just plain stupid, gimme anything over a ad-filled os/desktop.
Making it hard to remove the ads (e.g. obfuscating the code) would just be contrary to the point of having the source open, as would be saying "please don't remove the ads, we need the revenue." Look, Microsoft says, "please pay for our OS, we need the revenue." The difference gets pretty slim.
I can't imagine generating a lot of revenue from ads that show once to Linux or even more marginal OS users. So don't bother doing this--it distracts from the mission of making an open source OS and probably won't catch on with advertisers anyway.
-m
The idea that computers .
are to be always used for the banel
purposes of the money mongering mind control
crowd . .
is one that the envy mongers who want to
get rich without doing anything real
keep harping on.
The best 'ad' is a good product that
saves people money.
When the spin-off-miesters finally stop selling
accounting fraud and pyramid schemes
instead of useful products,
then consumers will start trusting
again.
Dream on, spin-miester
In any case, it is best for operating systems
to be decoupled from cupidity. Advertising
rarely is.
companies wouldn't use them. I think a little advertising in this type of setting would be fine, especially if it aids in getting good software to the public. However, as in every other opportunity like this one, the Madison Avenue types will over-advertise and piss everyone off. Madison Avenue needs to learn "moderation" and "don't piss off your target market."
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
Many people are pointing out that OSS's beauty is that ad-supported software can be easily recompiled without the ads. Well, so what? This seems like an advantage of the approach to me. Those who wish to support a project through direct monetary means can still do so and recompile without the ads. Those who wish to support a project through ads (perhaps strapped-for-cash college students) can do so by leaving the module in the code. Those who wish to support the project by contributing code and not cash can strip the ads out. And those who wish to not support the project are not forced to do so.
Who is hurt by this? No one! And still it opens up a new revenue stream for OpenSource OSes and applications.
I'd be first in line to buy Windows if that happened. I can just picture rushing out a letter on my wordprocessor and then having some giant ad block my view. I'd have that drive wiped in seconds.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Jeez, guys; don't you recognize tongue-in-cheek humor based on cluelessness when you see it?
Do I have to include smileys with everything I write?
I thought at least this one time it wouldn't be necessary. Now I can expect the moderators to mod it to troll status or something silly like that.
Oh, well, it fixes the ongoing problem with the karma cap.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Bundled with GAIN! Seriously though, if source is truly out there, someone can easily modify and redistribute without the ad fetatures enabled. However, the vast majority of users would not bother to block it themselves or get the source and build with modification, so unless another party with good distribution channels made the modifications, they would likely stick for desktop users...
Of course all o this is presuming that such an OS would have any sort of significant market penetration. Even if a decent solution can be pieced together that can be user friendly and do what they expect, lack of 100% windows compatibility would stand in the way. Lindows as seen by a 'common user' is a cheap knock off of windows that doesn't work as well, and windows only costs a little more. For the non-enthusiast the price tag is the quality benchmark, and the price difference is too small compared with the rest of the PC price to be a cause for concern. So the audience that things like Linux appeals to tends to be more technical and not an appealing audience, as ad companies know a significant portion of the audience will never see the ads. It works for common windows apps like Kazaa and DivX PRo, as the users are not highly technical on average. If you dig and experiment, you can get the free pro version and cripple Gain without bad side effects. This is no biggie because the proportion of users who are aware of this and willin gto go through the trouble of doing this is small compared to the mindset of linux users
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
A lot of the posters seem to be missing the point here. Of course it would be easy to recompile remove the adds. That is not the point. The question is, would people be willing to put up with the adds voluntarily to support a cool opensource project? This is a good question especially to those, who feel they should contribute somehow but do not have the necessary computer skills. (Slashdot may be the wrong audience to ask this question, though.)
"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." -- George H. W. Bush
Would you enjoy being bludgeoned by an olive loaf?
Ad-sponsored OS/Desktop?
Just let me know when Ad-aware runs on it, would you?
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
We need to move beyond ad-sponsoring. It is bad
enough on computers, but we really need to take
ads away from television.
But wait! Advertising was meant to be FREE!
Er, wait a sec.
Well, I guess if the advertisers agree that I can use their ads in any projects I'm involved in, so long as I include the original JPEG, this is fine.
No, wait, that's not right either.
Next we'll see branding. Product tie-ins.
GinsuBSD! Can hack through a tin can and still partition a tomato!
I'll tell you why. It's because most (not all, TOra, xmms, gaim) open source software sucks. There are too many examples of where windows software sucks less and does more. Why does it suck? It sucks because instead of contributing to an existing project, they need the ego boost of "doing it from scratch themselves." So, we end up with 30 chat clients and only 3 of them don't suck donkey balls. (Or 3 office suites that STILL suck and can't read/write all the popular file formats.) Put your friggin ego on the shelf and add features to existing projects instead of re-inventing the wheel. Of course, you'll say, "but that doesn't give me a wide enough choice of applications!" Well, if all 30 IM clients condensed to 3 clients that didn't suck and focused on different needs, you'd probably be happier with one of them than you are any of the current ones. I hate linux because of this. I use it, but I hate it. It still sucks, even after all these man hours.
I know...I was merely making a point for the masses. The fellowship of the relatively computer illiterate. It's not their fault...and they have better social lives (curse WarCraft III).
everyone on slashdot bitches about the ads on slashdot, why even bother asking us? i feel that advertisements and spam are the only two thing the entire community agrees on!
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
But, keep up the good work on finding ways to use technology to cram even more consumeristic crap down everyone's throats. We need more advertising in the world.
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
Look how well ad-revenue-based websites are doing!
Why, the owners of such websites are often able to purchase "luxury items" such as chalk and hamburgers with their nearly limitless income!
Would there also be an option to purchase an ad-free ad-based desktop (that still has a few ads in it, "for fun") for an additional $20 per year? Would that help bump LNUX shares up a little?
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Since it is a screen saver, it only pops up when you are away from your computer.
then it goes away as soon as you hit the mouse or keyboard or whatever.
People don't get paid for having ads (unless you are TV or radio) they get paid for click throughs.
So how do you measure they eyes that actually see the ad. How do you pay/get paid for this. Just because my ad hit 50,000 desktops this morning doesn't mean anything, as it corresponded with those 50,000 users turning on their computer, and walking to get coffee.
Nice idea but how would you charge for it.
How on earth would an OS desktop succeed, given that a significant chunk of the OS using world has an intrinsic dislike of advertising in the first place.
You might as well try and sell an MS desktop that popups a dialog every few minutes that screams, "Capitalism sucks!" Most office workers would rather drop dead than deal with the inherent irony of such a 'feature' every few seconds.
"Old man yells at systemd"
This story has been posted for 15 minutes, and it's still not /.'ed!!! Is that a record?
Open Source Software is not just about Free Software. Its about the right to choose. The right to choose what software should run on my computer. The Right to choose where I want to buy stuff from. The Right to choose the sellers I wanna buy from.
This is a bad idea for sure.
More over, the people who currently run OSS are geeks who know better than trust the ads they watch everyday.
Rapid Nirvana
I can see it now:
"Free as in ad-sponsored"
Option #1 would drive most users to choose other software -- since we're talking open source, there would usually be several options, including a freely modded version of the same package.
Option #2 is easier said than done. Obviously popups are out of the picture, as well as persistent ads that take up substantial screen space.
Personally I hate advertisements, but I'm a 40-ish crank and consider them a form of noise pollution. Younger generations seem to accept ads as part of our culture.
That's insane. When Philip K. Dick described personnal fridges that sang advertisements or that demanded $1 in order to open, I found that damn funny and imaginative. But since then, computers have gone much further, and I don't find this funny anymore. I do not want advertisements on anything I buy (although I often have to put up with it), and the last thing I want is to have them on MY computer. I prefered even to use I.E. or lynx to Opera for this very reason. I dislike MS business practices, but I hate advertisements (well XP is quite bad). Fortunatly I'm able to ignore most advertisements in web sites (Mozilla preventing the pop-unders) - for instance I can't remember a single Slashdot advertisement.
Besides this, the whole scheme is highly reminiscent of the stupidest business plans of the dot-com craze. What's next? Fund cancer research with South Park's T-Shirts ?
They want something that works. I like Opera, I want it free, there's a funky comic up there right now.
If I can get Opera for free, and they can get enough money off that add I sometimes click to support future development, then I say go for it.
How do we know companies won't start paying distro's (like RedHat) for desktop placement rights? Perfect source of income for the distro, and can be clicked or removed by the end user.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
This would work perfectly for an OS. Just make sure that the advertising company providing the funding has to run the OS as well. Lets see just how long they can stand the popup banners until they throw the computer out the window!
--Was I supposed to attach a sig?
Yes. An ad-sponsored desktop would work with OSS.
This thought makes me curious. What company would provide the OS with ads? Do these ads sit on my hard disk or do I need a connection to constantly download and view them? If it's the former, what stops me from modifying them to go away. If it's the latter then that's a real pain in my ass seeing as I'm stuck in south jersey on a 28.8 connection.
At the same time, I have to ask if the company involved would actually reinvest the money in OSS development. Maybe it's just me, but I somehow doubt a significant portion of it would.
This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
This must be the first question that has 99.9% of the /. community thinking the same answer.
The question becomes: What percentage of the ads would remain? Depending on the nerd vs. non-nerd user ratio, you'll get different answers.
I hate call waitin`~+~~~
NO CARRIER
I don't think anyone is suggesting that ads would pay for everything in some OSS project. That'd be crazy talk.
However, let's say that we build a screensaver app that allows for other processing, much like SETI or whatever and we say that the profits of this will support some OSS project. That'd be nice, right?
Plus, I see other people's desktops when I'm sitting in an office and see their screensavers. Ads placed there would reach me.
I know some corps are a pain, but I've worked places where the IT admin could make all the systems use the same screensaver and run SETI if he wanted. That's one of the reasons I'd suggest making it run on MS-Windows as well.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
Commericals on everything. I'm going to name my first born after the highest bidder. I can't wait to have a little Starbucks of my very own.
Ads rarely 'give you something for free'.
.
In their worst form they polute the
serenity of your inner thoughts.
Do you really want to train yourself or
your children to the urges of strangers
who have cupidity as a motive?
While most ads are benign at best,
some use envy, lust, greed, etc, to
compel you to behave in a way
that might not be in your best interest.
So. . . as I am smart enough to know this
I look at it as an evolutional advance for me.
I choose to turn off the ads most of the time
so I can attend to more important things
like educating others and freeing them
from the 'age of greed' thought processes
that make them imagine that an operating system
should be advertisor sponsered. .
go ahead and do it if you want to, maybe you
can convince some foolish bank to give you the
money.
Or maybe you can spend your advertising
knowhow on doing something positive
like promoting fire safety or other
good hygene.
In anycase, it seems sad that you attend
to a point of view that believes that
everything should always have a point of view
bought and paid for by strangers who will not
identify themselves.
I think it's funny to see this asked on /., the news site that's gone to ad-free subscriptions, and more annoying ads for those who didn't subscribe.
/. implemented subscriptions and their new ad policy, which was greater: /. subscriptions or junkbuster downloads? That right there should be your answer.
This is an easy scenario to figure out. On the day that
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
Oh yes, as if we didn't get enough advertisements on web pages, spam, tv commercials, telemarketers, junk mail, etc...now we need to invade the desktop. Is there no safe haven from marketers? Is this the price of capitalism? Screw it, I'm buying an AK-47, marrying a camel and moving to Iran. Hey, I may end up in prison for being an American, but at least I won't have to see another one of those "tiny camera" pop-up ads.
You are free to create such an OS.
I am free to use or to not us such an OS.
If it is Free Software, I am free to remove such "features" from the OS.
I don't see the issue.
One current example of this kind of thing is Netscape. You can tell a lot about people's reaction to corporate control and ads by whether they are using netscape or mozilla. Netscape has the familar name, but mozilla feels less commerical and tied to a particular organization.
Another indicator is how many people run webwasher or the equivalent. It isn't everyone, but it is a lot. People will go out of their way to avoid ads.
even better, check out my sig ;) thank goodness im not in the US.
and hey, good for UK. they've always been on the progressive side of dealing with drug problems; encouraging stuff.
"Old man yells at systemd"
It will not work.
The Number one open source project would be the one to prevent/block/hide the adds.
Get a free ipod.
Everyone seems so against the idea of putting ads on the desktop. I personally don't think it is a bad idea. If you did it on the desktop and not annoying pop ups that you had to close all the time it would be no big deal. I think you'd have to make sure the ads were acceptable and didn't advertise things such as pornography. But personally when using my computer I don't stare at the desktop I usually have something up and running covering the desktop anyways. And as we've seen with the internet bubble things that are free today may not be free tomorrow. If something like this could bring in additional revenue to open source projects and keep them free I see no harm what so ever in doing it. The only way it is a problem is when it interferes with the use of the software. As long as it doesn't interfere with anything I think it's a good idea.
If your not cheating your not trying. If your not trying your not winning and if your not winning why play?
( ) Yes
/. so long I don't remember how to answer polls that don't include CowboyNeal.
( ) No
( ) I am not sure
I've been on
--
I romp with joy in the bookish dark
If anything the most important aspect of open source software is the philosophy, not the software itself. Remember, open source isn't about zero cost, it's about freedom. Anyways, open source users already see enough ads where the revenue goes to support the community (slashdot, freshmeat, thinkgeek and sourceforge anyone?).
Slashdot & other websites -- ads location added to hosts file
RealPlayer --cracked
AOL Instant Messenger --Im running ICQ, cracked
KaZaA -- Kaza lite...
what are these ads you speak of
- Donation-supported media (public radio)
- Begging-for-donation-supported media (public TV w/ pledge drives)
- Sponsorship media (public radio, public TV)
- Ad-based media (standard TV, radio)
- Pay media (HBO)
Note that I would almost put public TV in the ad-based media, but their ads do not interrupt content, so I didn't. I put that in sponsorship media, which isn't exactly the same. Sponsorship is more of a charity-based act, and although some new customers may notice the company through the sponsorship, it might not result in greater profits.More importantly, the Internet is now facing a reality that commercial TV and radio faced in the 1940s: Ads wear out. After a while we become numb to ads, and don't pay much attention. The more annoying and rude they get, the less attention we pay. The difference is that TV, radio, and porn sites seek ways to make ads more annoying, and companies like Google try to sell ads based on useful information and non-obstructive delivery.
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
Fuck off to your ad-sponsored anything. Fuck off to this market-investigation question. Fuck off to anybody asking me questions about how they could make money off of me. I am not a consumer. Stay out of my brain. Stay out of my wallet. Just leave me the fuck alone.
Slashdot thinks its a fantastic idea, and that it should be implemented using SourceForge.
SourceForge: Its just like Star Wars, except its a change control system.
Oh wait, you mean the READERS of slashdot. We think it would be pretty shitty. We also think that it would take approximately 45 seconds after release for someone to edit out the advertisements, thank God for the GPL.
Why is it that everyone is trying to drive OSS into the corperate business model. I realize that developers of GNOME, KDE, X, Linux, BSD, etc. need machines to test on but this is after all their hobby. And isn't the point of OSS that the community should be involved, by testing, troubleshooting, and dare I say fixing bugs. So that the developer doesn't have to test on every platform out there. People need to stop assuming that it's the responsibility of the core project developers to add all the features, to find all the bugs, and test every piece of hardware. Linux managed to become a stable, robust, and usable system ads to fund it's development.
So come on people, if you have to get paid to develop OSS then you probably shouldn't be developing OSS. OSS is a hobby it's done in the evenings, on the weekends, on vacation, and during those sleepless nights. If you really want to support your favorite project download gcc, cvs, and vim and get started.
If the source for the ad software is in the OS, it won't be long before someone uses it to send a trojan back to the advertiser. Or DoS them. Or worse. And then we would look even worse than the spammers.
Its called Windows.
Free as in beer, free as in speech, free as in money - ASK ME HOW!
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
www.dpreview.com
One of my favorite Digital Camera related web site. The guy isn't making money, or very little (has he once said in a thread on his forum), but it pays for the infrastructure. There is also many others. I give you that you don't stand much chance to become rich that way, but if you have good content, good and regular users, a non-obstrusive way of displaying the ads and a relationship with the one who advertise, it can work well. For you, and the one advertising. For exemple, if people can get a 10% discount or a free shipping promotion if they order thru your website, it won't harm...
I'd rather be sailing...
Ads are just wrong.
We are bombarded by too many of them already. No one thinks they affect their own thinking, but yet they do. Although they make for interesting "shell-game" business models, I think that they are intrinsically problematic and we'd all be better off with less of them.
Many ads are nothing more than visual spam.
There Aint No Such Thing as a Free Lunch. People should pay for services instead of pretend that advertising doesn't cost them anything.
The vast majority of ads do nothing to advance humanity. They condition people to be uneducated consumers by manipulating your emotions, subconcious, and lower level thoughts.
After all, I can honestly say I enjoy many commercials on the TV. When it comes to banner ads and popups I'm more likely to have a negative opinion of the site/application and the sponsoring company.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
While my snappy answer to stupid questions usually ends here with a "Next question", I feel that this time it is necessary to elaborate.
There are two major reasons I don't ever see this working:
- It's the freedom, dummy
- It's for fun, stupid
So, in conclusion, I'd have to say that this won't work, and I'm glad it won't. One of the biggest reasons I switched to Linux early on was that I wasn't inundated with advertising every time I started it up.The poster asks
and I'd have to answer that while many will disagree, it's the licensing and philosophy. It used to be that I would use Linux because it was better. To a certain degree, I still do. But even if it wasn't better, I would have switched long ago because it gives me something no other operating system can: freedom. This may seem very anti-pragmatic, but I don't think it is. I believe that truly free software is the only way to get truly great software that truly serves the user's needs. What could be more pragmatic than that?Let's face it: Linus made Linux because he wanted to, and he's continued working on it because he enjoys it. This could be said about many pieces of open source software. Every person may have his or her price, but would you rather have something that someone hated making but were paid gobs of money to make, or something that someone made as a labor of love and were paid nothing for it? Again, countering the "well that's all very idealistic, but . . . " naysayers, I would have to say that the most excellent products of human effort have been ones that were not solely inspired by monetary gains.
Nathan's blog
I really think that donations are the best way to potentially make a little cash. No one is going to get rich with donations, but I would put a few bucks in to all the projects I really like. Now... if there was only some type of safe open source donation system. Paypal is no good. Maybe the GNU team should sponsor its own escrow service like paypal. It should, however, be an official BANK with FDIC insurance. And it should work out all the possible hangups regarding buyers protection services. That would be GREAT!
Face it, adware companies are sleeziest, slimiest, most unscrupulous charlatans the world has ever been widely exposed to. The internet has given these deceivers the "power" to reach millions.
Slashdot has run dozens of stories, or well, at least linked to dozens of stories about these crooks. This one from last week was one of the best examples of what types of people are behind adware and spyware, but there have been many, many, many others recently, and they go back for years.
Even if an adware "sponsorship" were run by a more "honest" company, it's hard to imagine they could resist the pressure to spend the funds on their own well-intentioned efforts. But given the sorry state of adware and spyware on windoze-based shareware and the dismal glimpses into the operations behind these adware services, it's hard to believe these would be any well-meaning intentions at all when it comes to actually handling the money.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
The point is, as soon as I start seeing ads get built into a tool, application, or whatever, I lose interest. And as has been pointed out, it's easy enough to strip out the ads code anyway.
Maybe an ads for the precompiled versions, and the availablility of a paid for version without the ads? I suppose it's more likely to work for some people.
Another idea is to have a switch for configure like so: that triggers a blurb at the bottom of the configure and the make saying that I'm breaking their hearts. At least then it's a reminder and will probably prevent a whole add-striping patch project..
Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
The best way for a company to sponsor a project would be to host it and make the developers happy with their involvement. Ad banner crap won't do it, but http://www.osdesktop.cnn.com with a website that simply credits CNN (or whoever) with supporting and backing the project will.
Inject the advertiser/supporter's name in a small, readable watermark on a default background. Include an application with some actual usable value with the software that makes people want to keep it around. Like a CNN news ticker integrated into the desktop in a nice and unobtrusive manner. Or a weather map, or a schedule listing. If the company is less media oriented, sponsor a distribution. It might cost a little more, but the results would be more worthwhile, and people won't be recompiling to kill anything.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
I think its a great way to introduce new Linux users to hacking. Too many of us just download an ISO, install, and use it. Forcing us to learn how to get rid of the flashing banners would get more people into development
1. So you install a desktop with ads, and all your other apps with ads, and before you know it your desktop looks more like a mosaic of ads than a functional, effective desktop.
2. All your machine end up being able to do is downloading more ads..
The only reason the OSS would have to even consider doing something like this is because they're still stuck in the corporate mind-set. Open source software has thrived in the past without being worked on full time. I thought the whole deal about being a hacker was to do this stuff in your spare time. Once you started giving people pay checks to make open source software you turned into your parents.
Alas, no utopia is perfect.
--Roy
This is a repost of my post on OSNews
Maybe a bunch of enterprising OS/Desktop folks should sell versions of their software along with useful web/net services.
Take, for example, Gentoo. They could create a Gentoo counterpart of Apple's iTools called "GenTools". GenTools would offer maybe 30MB of network storage for backup (sort of like iDisk), and they would offer web hosting that could integrate in with Mozilla (it shouldn't be too hard to do with the rendering engine + XUL) or if the target is developers (which I think Gentoo is gunning for, from what little I know about the distro) they could offer 100M of CVS storage space. And of course, they could do the whole RedHat/Ximian thing like up2date/red carpet and sell software updating services.
The worst thing about ads is not that they annoy the user but that they show such a lack of creative thinking. Be less Juno and more TiVO.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
it surely can't be C; my C is rusty but shouldn't it be more like (parody of hungarian notation)
no, more like #if 0
draw_advertisement(screen);
#endif in a program that uses (say) the Allegro library.
Will I retire or break 10K?
So yes, I think donations make more sense than ads. However, there's a problem with asking people to write a check for $50 or something. It's a big chunk of cash, and experience has shown that only a vanishingly small percentage of users will pay shareware fees. One of the problems is that you really don't know how much you're going to use a piece of software until quite a lot of time has gone by. I've downloaded a lot of open-source stuff, but there are really only 5 or 10 open-source apps that I use on a regular basis every day. So micropayments might make more sense. I wouldn't mind paying one cent every time KDE fired up. The problem is we don't have a micropayment infrastructure that is widely used and practical.
Another problem I see with this kind of revenue-seeking is that you don't necessarily know whose software you're using, because one of the main advantages of open source is code reuse. For example, I'm using Mozilla right now. Well sure, it might make sense to give some money to the Mozilla developers. But Mozilla also uses XML heavily, and I'm sure it uses a library for that, maybe Expat. So doesn't the guy who wrote Expat deserve some of my money? When I click on the submit button to post this, Slashdot's server is going to run a Perl script. Shouldn't Larry Wall get some money? And what about any BSD boxes that my packets pass through in order to get to Slashdot -- shouldn't those BSD developers get some money? Oh yeah, and all of that software was compiled with gcc, so Stallman should get a cut. The whole thing just gets silly.
Find free books.
Even assuming you could make it too hard to remove the ad (you can't) it won't fly; People would just use competing software, without an ad.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'm a big fan of the donation model, personally. If an Open Source project needs financial support, I think that's the way to do it. If you think about it, that's really how the major distros operate. They all offer some sort of free install (ISOs from Red Hat and Mandrake, FTP from SuSE, etc). The only reason I buy the boxed set is to support the distro, in other words as a donation, for which I recieve the gift of some already burned CDs and maybe a book.
I really don't think advertisements are appropriate, nor would they be effective. Advertising embedded in an Open Source project would obviously be easily removed, which would, I think, make advertisers a little wary of paying for that space. The most likely result would be a fork of the project, with the non-ad fork grabbing most of the users and the ad-based one slowly whithering away.
More than that, though, I think it's disrespectful to the users. The entire Open Source community is based on a web of trust and respect. The developers respect the users by providing them with high quality software at minimal cost, and the users trust the developers to not try to milk them.. Personally, I put advertising in OSS in the same sleazy boat as Ransom Love's per-seat licensing and all the BS Lindows is currently pulling.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
The idea is interesting. Any company that made money on "free" software by placing ads would probably be able to work deals with government institutions and other public facilities. I don't believe that many businesses would come on board, especially if the ads linked to web sites which were distractions for employees. In any event, it is one possible solution to the glaring problem of not making money by giving away software. But as with XMRadio and DMX, you will find many people willing to pay to forego the ads. I would be one of them.
If Linux required so few reboots as to NOT be in the advertisers' best interests for advertising. /. community would be all over that.
What great PR! You can bet that the
Half of these post say they wouldn't support ads on the desktop yet the same people say they click ads on sites they support. So if you really support open source software you wouldn't disable the ads. I also think that something like this could make advertising to a computer less annoying and the ads much more interesting and more effective. It gives the advertiser much more power. For example it could run tv style ads when you have everything minimized on the desktop. I personally think it could bring advertisers back. And I'm for anything that can bring more money to technology companies because 20 years from now I hope to still be able to find a job. And as much as I support open source the fact of the matter is if there is no money coming in I don't have a job. And I support anything that keeps me employed in the field that I like so I don't have to flip burgers at McDonalds.
If your not cheating your not trying. If your not trying your not winning and if your not winning why play?
Advertising on my desktop would be a nightmare punishment and I think is already reserved for my trip to hell shortly after death.
Seriously advertisement must be stopped. I have reached a point where I can't get away from it and I hate the world for it.
Enough already.
Please.
I'm begging.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
You guys are pretending that there is no groupthink on slashdot. Give me a break!
Write a batch file that reboots your computer, "clicks" on the fucking ads, sends $$$ credit to our developer friends...repeat this over and over again ad infinitum!
What's more important, making money or sticking with your ideals?
Gee, I don't know. As an American I should say, "Make money make money." Because that is what I was raised (brain washed) to believe was the purpose of my existence.
Having learned a few things in the past 30 years I would have to say that I prefer my ideals over making some cash.
It's not impossible, or wrong, to make money off of OSS. I have been doing that for years. This year alone I have made literally thousands of dollars off of OSS.
I don't understand why so many people are drawn to advertising as a source for revenue. Be a little freaking creative people.
How about this, do want you love to do and you will be the richest person in the room. If it makes you happy to make an OS with advertisements in it, go for it. If you just want to make a kick ass OS, then do that.
We, in the US, have WAAAAAYYYYY too many ads shoved down our throats and are sick and tired of being thought of as nothing more than consumers - at least I am. Let's move on, let's really innovate.
Maybe it's not so much a shortage of advertising customers as it is an oversupplied commodity market for the space. I see no shortage of advertising on the web, but everyone complains about the lack of money they get from banner ads. Evidently the banner ad companies offered less and less money, looking for the price point where the supply became a problem. The website owners accepted less and less money until they started going out of business. However the continuous expansion of the Internet means a never-ending supply of people who will sell space for whatever they can get, which is now approaching $0.
Now we have ads that are bigger than ever, as well as the highly annoying pop-ups, pop-unders, and "Shoshkeles". Not that I see many of them, of course.
I see no reason why an ad-supported desktop or other software product would fare any better than the ad-supported websites.
This sort of effort would be better invested in making payment easier. I'm not in the US (rules out direct transfer, paypal etc) and I don't have a credit card (because I don't want credit. I spend money I have already). Give me a way to send you money!
When you send me ads, you're telling me to fuck off. They're annoying, and they subtract from my most valuable resources when sitting in front of my computer (time, and screen real estate).
One of the problems with Linux is that for non-nerds, it can be a bit difficult. Let's face it, everyone is growing up in a PC/MAC school system, and using GUI interfaces that have years of development compared to X. Now, don't get me wrong, I love Linux. But I am a nerd, and can get around the little idiosyncrasies Linux presents as a desktop OS.
However, wouldn't ad ware help with funding to provide things like tech support for those among us that are not computer geeks? While many faithful and brilliant programmers are working on the code, how much user-friendly documentation, help files, and good old fashion tech support is built into your Linux OS? Sure, I can search on Google and find a good white paper how to do whatever in Linux, but can my 60 yo father? I am sure a lot of people out there would take a free OS, with some ads, if they knew they had some tech support. Is this not at least something to look at? Just an idea.....
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
get back satan!!
Please don't even think of turning OpenSource into a ad banner.
May you burn in hell for even suggesting it!
I think the question shows a fundamental misunderstanding by asking us to say whether we think the philosophy is more important or the quality of the software and by making the statement "as embarrassing commercialism is against the freedom of Open Source Software." Open source is not about eliminating commercialism or business. Despite comments often made to the contrary, most open source/free software advocates are not Communist, anti-capitalist, or anti-business. Please see also RMS's comments about how commercial and free software are not mutually exclusive and selling free software.
Advertising in open source/free software would not be a sacrifice of principle. That said, I seriously doubt it would help the quality of the software, either.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
If you can't support a website with ad revenue, or even an ISP , why would anybody think it would work for an entire OS?
rooooar
/*
{lots of ad code here)
*/
Open source and adware are inherently incompatible.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
Reading the debian-legal list recently brought something to light that I never realized about the GPL.
The relevant threads are Here
The begining of the thread is here
Basically the author of isdn2h323 had added an additonal requirement that his banner remain a part of the HTML produced my his program. (I believe it was HTML). The issue was that it is impossible to distribute his software legally under the GPL because he had done this.
1) The author cannot legally modify (add to) the GPL because its copyright forbids it
2) The GPL states that the only terms and conditions that can apply to the software distributed under the GPL are those contained in the GPL. Otherwise the software cannot be distributed.
Anyway.. thats my half ass summary. Read the artlices!
My only real point is that to make this effective, you would need a liscense other than the GPL to be drafted.
Scott.
it has the potential to be just as successful as PointCast, NetZero, FreePC...
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
There's already enough people scrambling to try to convince me to buy their shit without having to have a shit display built into an OS.
Screw advertisers. If I wanted to buy their shit I'd buy it already.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
I'm not even going to waste my time making a point.
Never argue with a man carrying a water buffalo
I've mentioned it before, and I'll do it again.
Branding an Open Source OS will probably work.
I've seen AOL clients branded by Walmart[1].
An Open Source OS company could offer large chains a branded OS - not necessarily annoying blinking ads, but just the corporate logo-of-choice branding on things like the boot-up screen, the desktop, the title bars of browsers, etc. In return for this branding, if the company could get customer support contracts from the users. This creates a possibility of profitability for the OS company.
Let's take Mandrake, for example, which is very end-user newbie oriented. They have a graphical boot-up screen.
This would provide an opportunity for a large retail chain, say Target, to gain screen space. Instead of the boot-up screen showing all the scary things like "loading SSH [ok]", it could show the Target Logo as well as scroll specials offered on the web-site as the machine boots. These specials could even be downloaded as a back-end process during the previous session so each boot-up would show an updated catalogue of specials, getting the user interested for each boot-up. This service could be offered to the corporation thus generating revenue from Target for keeping the backend of such a system running.
To continue the branding, have Target appear in the title-bar and make it the home-page of the default browser - Mozilla on the O.S. Once again, the OS company could bill Target for the maintenance of the Linux-specific area of the home-page - so that it corresponds with specials seen during the boot-up process.
Any other ideas?
[1]AOL 7.0 brought to you by Wal-Mart in the title bar
Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
I am not usually a paranoid alarmist but after seeing Minority Report its easy to see how the world could eventually be overrun with "ad pollution." I know advertisements have their purpose but I am afraid of the possible damage to the psyche after years of ad oversaturation.
...would be one to silently, in the background, pull as many ads as possible to keep the impression counts high and the projects funded, without having to subject anyone to actually looking at the ads. There's something in the back of my mind that tells me this model won't last long...
But just as long as it is done correctly. with the advertisment in one spot on the screen and a consistant size. Popup Adds and Spam are a big No no to me. they are to intrusive and interfere with productivity but just a small- medium size banner I wouldnt have any isues. espectly if it is helping to keep Open Source products in development. I have no gripes against fair marketing. If I am paying getting the program for free and the fact if it is really anoying I can take it out of the source. But one banner that is always there wouldnt be an issue for me. And if it looks instering I will click the link to help support the sight.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Bizzare as it may seem, and as much as we dislike adware, maybe as an option, people may voluntarily do this to fund the OSS development of said project - they may well reap the benefits. I mean were it a downloader extension to a browser, NO PROBS. Except here would be the conditions:
Simple clickable depth limited links with a restricted fixed W/H (possibly animated) gif which has been vetted - no Flashing - but slow page changes. No JScript, no pop-ups, no spyware. Just simple Ads. And even better on topic( Not dissimilar from the slashdot ad-selection). Occasionally I have clicked through to think-geek. As long as it is carried out this way - I could see a use for it.
Anyone here played with click-and-donate websites? Like NSPCC where you can contrib, and better still it comes from MS and others(yes your clicks can spend MS's money for them - pity you can only click once a day).
I mean, decent ontopic ads, in an optional bar, with per-ad commision would make sense. How about a sourceforge ad in an optional bar in KDE, or sponsored help links in the docs.
As long as it doesnt get out of hand this could be a fine way to boost OSS - of course I am being very optimistic and idealistic. But like we mentioned above - the option will always be there - you can remove it in the source if an option isnt added in the UI. Or better still add the option to hide/unhide in the UI yourself.
Mike.
Mmmm......sacrelicious.
I would propose that if OSS companies or development groups need money or funds, they start their own Bank with very specific terms, interests, investments etc. If the bank is formed like a farmers cooperative, then instead of cash, transactions can done in a form of money that would be a binding form of IOU. Transactions would work a little like this:
1.You give me 100 IOU's for my work on a project of yours.
2.I give 50 IOU's of the 100 that I earned towards someone who will spend time helping me to get XFree86 to install and work easily on xxx laptop.
3.Some company, e.g. SuSE, gives me 20 IOU's so I'll write up some documentation on getting their distro to work on xxx laptop.
etc etc.
The point would be that this would be a). as legally binding as the GPL and b). would involve no cash.
I'm sure there would be a lot of legal wrangles to work out, but there is a sort of similar system in use here in Switzerland (indeed some of my salary is paid out in this way). It provides a good method of barter in lieu of traditional cash, which is always at the whim of the stock market and is much , much more restistant to fat, greedy corporate bosses trying to fuck you over.
Is all built by volunteer work..
Actually it would be nice, I just love flashing ads and all... Plus we gotta find a way to ..[BOOM BOOM BOOM] Hey everyone lay down ! I can hear RMS coming for us ! Everywhere thunders in the sky ! Just hope we have time to repe[KABOOM..]
The only ads that don't bother me are text based and clearly marked as an ad. All others often present themselves as we demand you see them!
Now IMO, if you want to make money off each person using your OSS, let them donate idle cpu cycles. And in a good fashion, after so much contributed time toward the product, it's paid for. Upgrades would cost more but that's up to the user wither they want the latest and greatest. Certainly the die hard supporters of the project could continuously donate to their hearts content.
Unlike eyeball time, this is a mandatory donation method where the buyers are actually getting what they paid for. It's also the only method I've ever heard or thought of that I can support.
Ummm... projects need developers, developers are people, people need to live, living requires resources, resources include money, money comes from advertisers, advertisers have interests, interests are dictated by profits, profits buy ad-space, ads drive profits.
So what happens when the projects that require ad-revenue conflict with the advertisers interests? Who decides what ad-revenue to accept or reject. "Hi Mozilla, I'm from, Micro-, I mean, uhh... Macrosoft, and uh, we'll pay $100/click MORE than the next guy if you do(n't) implement such and such." This sort of dependency, IMHO, whether in open-source projects, the education system (a la Coca-Cola et al.), etc. is Not A Good Thing(tm). Better for the projects to find business models which are self-sustaining, or rely on non-partisan contributions.
I'm sure the issue is much more complicated than a simple dichotemy but in general I'd say no.
Let me start first by saying I understand where this is comming from. Software development takes time, and like any thing else, time is money. In today's day and age where major companies, not just hobyists are looking into using open source OSes. As a result, the demand for faster and "better" (but not always) development has increased. To help speed development along, you need to provide incentive for a developer to work more dilligently, otherwise known as paying them. Unfortunately for the opensource world this method of payent through ads will not work. And here's why:
1) As many people have pointed out, you can always comment the ad scripts out of the OS, and recompile.
2) Very limited advertising, the same reason web sites paid with ads don't work (unless they're loaded with ads). In broadcast radio and TV (which are free to the user), each radio and tv station is located in a particular area and the reach a known audience. Knowing your audience is near by and capabe of buying a product from you is what intises advertisers to by spots on radio and TV. But when you do something like a web site, a satelte radio or an ad run OS, your market is no longer ridgedly difinned. Suddenly, your only advertisers are those that sell a generaly universal product. For example, here in upstate NY, the radio is often filled with ads in the winter for various ice melts. Those advertisers will to pay to advertise however, if they don't knw for certain that the ad is reaching the desired people (who in Florida wants ice melt?)
3) Advertisements are annoying. Let's face it. We all hate ads. We accept them as a nessesary evil for broadcast, and even for te web. But hw many of us actuly pay attention? Most people flip channels when ads come on, or change stations. Most of us when we go to a page have our mouses trained on the exact spot the ad window will appear so that we can close is without it loading. No one likes ads and no one wants to be bomarded with them when they're using their computer.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I am surprised I did not read this already. What about the privacy implications of such a scheme? In order for advertising to work well, you have to track that the ad cause me to click through and purchased product X. That means my OS or whatever knows/tracks my purchasing online?
;-)
I for one, would not want this to be the norm.
Oh wait, what do I have on my desktop? Windoze! More and more it is built in already to track me. Oops! I guess this is a moot point.
Yes, I use Windows 2000 every day as it happens. It's a steaming pile of crap. And the job before my current one we did Win2K web servers and as a matter of course they were rebooted every two weeks as a pre-emptive strike.
While it's better than previous versions of windows, it's still pretty crap.
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
For me it would be fine with optional ads to support for example the KDE project. But having ads will make Free Software look bad to outsiders and newbies considering switching from their current desktop to Free Software (Ads is something Joe User doesn't like). And proprietary software vendors would say (Imaginary quote): "Dont go with that freeware stuff, they are just out for making money with those ads you have to click on". I dont think the fact that it would be optional would get through. It would be like Free Software == Annoying popup ads.
First, you could remove it -- redundant
Second, the philosophy behind OSS is much more important than the funding of the software. Without the philosophy, we wouldn't have gotten to where we are today. Simply throwing Billions at an idea doesn't make it work all by itself. Sometimes it needs to be a good idea too.
Thirdly, imagine what would happen to the productivity of the consumer/corporation who was using this software....
"Hello, is this AOL?"
"Yes it is, how can I help you?"
"You can quit popping my screen and let me finish my financial report in time for the board meeting!"
"I'm sorry, we won't be able to do that, but I can direct you to the AOL InstantAccountingChart web page so that you can create full color overheads."
"But how can they be accurate?!"
"Who cares? It'll look really spiffy!"
If the advertising integrates nicely with the shell, why not? Right after one issued a find, make, or latex command might be a good time to place an ad on stderr.
http://erichsieht.wordpress.com/category/english/
If we are talking Free Software (eg. Gnome project, etc..) then no it would. Freedom to change software is one of the main drivers of the GNU GPL. So I shall freely remove the ads.
A by mblase:
Entirely ethical, I should think. You gave me the code and the open-source license to modify it as I see fit, didn't you?
Who said it was ethical to gimp up other people's free code with adverts to begin with?
Don't you just love logic?
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
First its only one ad, then in a few months maybe another if you open up Evolution, or one for Gimp. Man, I only have one thing to say: fuck it. Why the hell do we need to sell ourselves out now, when we're (OSS) kicking so much ass? Christ.
I'm starting to remember why I stopped reading Slashdot. Here we have someone posting an incendiary piece of garbage that on any other forum would be considered trolling, but that on /. is passed off as 'news'. Like I want to read the opinion of every Torvalds-fellating shmuck with too much time on their hands.
Instead of just rating each others' comments, we should be able to blow away any article that has no basis in reality and is obviously just there to get a rise out of people. Or maybe we could vote to blow away the ability to comment on it...
ack...
The ads are on the desktop background or on a screensaver. I'll kill the first asshole that puts pop-up ads that interrupt my work on my Linux/BSD desktop!
No matter where you go... there you are.
% ls -l
*This directory listing
brought to you by Ebay*
Public Relations Marketing software does not interfer with the
operation of software but rather is an acknowledgement of the goodwill
of the sponsor. As such it should be noted that such acknowledgement
is of the same nature as is a software license giving credit to the
authors. One example is a startup notice (that will vanish on it's own
in very short time, and be disabled by user choice). Another is mention
of sponsor in the "About" menu item.
The value to give sponsors in exchange for their sponsorship is
acknowledgement of their sponsorship.
That's Goodwill!!! Something to respect! And something OSS developers
probably will respect perhaps as mush as they respect the license and
license holder of OSS..
The Internet today is great proof that ad sponsered anything is not possible.
Besides, if it was oss why wouldn't someone just start a new project, sans ads?
The concept seems valid enough, yet once you begin examining the way the open source community really works, you run into trouble. It's clear that many open source projects desparately need to find some ways of generating revenue, other than the assorted pleas for donations that seem to be the current mainstay. But I don't think this generally good idea of advertising on the desktop would work. Here's why...
Almost assuredly, the developers of the project would envoke a policy similar to Slashdot's and other sites. That is, to say, we'll only take this size of ad, this type of ad, and ads only from this select group of advertisers. That's defeatist from the start, and it runs counter to the very reason you choose to run advertising in the first place: to generate revenue. There is no such thing as a "noble advertisement" There is no difference between the dollars generated by an bikini-girl camera ad and a SourceForge ad. But this fact, I think, is lost among the clutter of ideas the open source community has about making money.
To be accepted in the most meager of fashions by the community, the developers would have to limit the types of advertisers they place on the desktop, but by giving way to the political correctness of the community, they cut themselves off from the vast majority of advertising dollars. That missed money would be used to improve the project which would ultimately benefit the entire open source community, yet the community, because of its supposed high-mindedness, would never use the product.
Until the open source community stops associating making money to pay the bills and to improve the product as evil, advertising and any other means of generating revenue for open source projects simply cannot be considered.
I love OSS because:
1) I have the freedom to choose *every* aspect of the software
2) I get great quality the majority of the time
3) It is free in cost
Almost everywhere you go, a corporation has their fingers into something. Almost everywhere you go, ads cover everything.
But I can get away from that with OSS. When I use OSS and related areas (Read: Slashdot), I don't deal with that. No corps. who play pimp. Relatively rare ads. Nothing seems to be shoved down my throat, and I get good quality. Why? Because OSS people in general have half a brain, relatively good morals and just "love the game."
Money is needed for everything. But isn't the backbone of OSS the love of the game? We do it because we want to, because we love to?
Do we really want to change our orientation here?
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
Just forget about it..
Now now, thats not nice. Yes, the UK is practically run from France. You appear to be on top of things as far as current affairs goes. How is Bush these days? Has he worked out how to use a pretzel yet? When he gives a televised speech, are you aware that it sounds, to us, like he is addressing a bunch of 9 year olds, or is that about right for your level of intelligence? Its hard to tell - only 4% of you have passports and less still leave the country, so i dont get to meet many of them.
Lawsuits for excercising free speech? What must I be careful not to say?
I hope we adopt the Euro - its working fine everywhere its been tried. Still, it`ll be bad for you to have 1 major non-US currency to deal with. We`ll see...
From over here, it doesnt look like you lot have many friends left in the world...still, you`ve got enough food to keep killing yourselves with..what it is, 300 people dying each day due to an inability to grasp the simple fact that just because food tastes nice and you can physically move it from your plate into your mouth, doesnt mean you should. You`ll get there eventually.
BBC = State owned propaganda? You prefer a `free` one owned by people with vested interests in promoting an environmentally damaging, right wing, anti-progressive agenda? Go for it!
I doubt OSS groups would go for it on ideological grounds. But a potential implementer could be the commercial UnitedLinux vendors. Hell, we already know they're whores. If they just took the ad money and pocketed the profit, they'd just go down the drain. It would diminish what little marketability their product possess. BUT, if they used the ad revenue to coordinate distribution of funds to software efforts they depend on, it would be free r&d to improve their product, and perhaps they could entice users with a better running distribution.
Alternately, Transgaming should look into it as a way of accelerating their development resources.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Remember the ISP's which provided a "free" ad-sponsored connection to the web? Heard anything about them lately?
ATT WorldNet tried it halfway. For $5/month you could have unlimited connectivity. A new ad would pop up about every 3 minutes, and they constantly monitored your browsing habits so they could customize the ads. They had a higher priced plan with no ads and no big brother.
WorldNet doesn't offer that plan any more. In the first place, the advertising revenue just isn't there. In the second place, not enough people were willing to give up their privacy and unbothered browsing for them to try the plan at a price advertising revenue would actually support.
If the ads were at the operating system level, yuck. Capitalism is ok, just so long as the capitalists and their logging devices stay OUTSIDE my computer!
- - -
"The sixth sick shiek's sixth sheep's sick."
> Jeez, guys; don't you recognize tongue-in-cheek humor based on cluelessness when you see it?
You must be new here; there's too much genuine cluelessness to be able to separate humor posts from the ones who are serious.
> Do I have to include smileys with everything I write?
Not unless you mind being misunderstood.
Is'nt the whole point or the unwritten rule of OSS for
a) access to source code
b) no advertising
It's bad enough as I walk down to the shops to buy some teabags and am assaulted by adverts all over the place, but to have to put up with it on a PC is too much!
Advertising free Operating System certified is what we want!
OSS doesn't need sponsorship. You might, but OSS doesn't.
Apache.
Perl.
Linux.
ad. nausium
OSS desktops work now. Would an ad-sponsored desktop work as well? Probably... not as well as one without the ad-ware crap built in, so it might "work" but I don't see how someone could justify selling it, using it, or buying ad-time on it.
My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
Get a job that pays real money to do your crappy programming then you won't have to look at ads all day long.
I mean, is that really that hard to understand?
I've read the book you mention.
I think you are right, Public Relations Marketing can be the acceptable midway point between getting sponsorships for OSS and FreeSoftware (FSF) and giving something back to the Sponsors.
SO you go to the corner store, buy a sixer, and as you get your change from the clerk (Assuming you didn't pay with plastic) you see it right there:
maybe an easter seal's "Give us a quarter" thingie, a box to help Jerry Lewis save the kids, but some sort of receptacle asking for your change. Hey, it's a dime! Who cares?
It would be cool if you could set something up like this on-line. Right befor you confirm every purchase there is a button that says "Round up to the nearest dollar and donate that to the OSS Foundation"- it would never be more than a dollar, and you could set it up in your "shopping profile" to do it automagically.
Or if you don't trust the online merchants, maybe your online credit card will do it for you- just like Click Citi gives you money back on your online purchases, they instead say "last month you charged $XXXXXXXX, paid for it, and generated $xx(note the small X's!) for the OSS Foundation"
They can easily move the money around and if you don't trust them with your money, DON'T USE A CREDIT CARD!
Now, assume there is some OSS foundation specifically for handling donations (which I assume would be easily auditable, since you could check 'em out on sourceforge!) and this would be a cinch!
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
I don't see a problem with a splash screen displaying "KDE 3: Sponsored in part by Pepsi"
I do have a problem with using an internet connection to track ad views or provide new ads.
Coding Blog
The deficit of open source millionaires also discourages individuals from programming OSS. At the point programmers code for the love of software instead of greed, the software is naturally better.
It's similar to sex. Your wife (stereotypically radical case example I know) makes love to you for you. A prostitute sets sights on different goals. I'm sure you can see the desirablity of the former. Don't encourage the whorification of OSS programmers.
Step 1: A superb dotcom/software/whatever idea
Step 2: Sell advertising space
Step 3: Profits
I think advertisers already have too much choice (tv, radio, print media, web, movies, mobile phones etc). Where are we going to find even more advertisers? Where are we going to find people that care about all this advertising (I don't)?
I think it is time to get more creative. Or, lets be less creative. The work done by software developers should somehow be compensated by the users of their work, right? In exchange the software users could give some of their work to the developers, right? We could even use the universal exchange unit of work, right? Hey, wait...but that's money!?!
Fine, let them put their ads, and watch people comment it out--or better yet, use something else alltogether. Let the market (for ideas) sort the crap out.
What problem would this solve?
To me, this is yet another solution looking for a problem. Could someone enlighten me?
What if they are ads from Microsoft - or record labels? would you still support them then?
Everytime an ad comes on the TV, I turn it to another station or hit the mute button and go do something for a bit. I don't listen to radio, so I can't comment on the effectiveness of radio ads. About the only ads I'll really pay attention to would be a few magazine ads.
Web ads get blocked or ignored depending on how obtrusive they are.
Ads on my desktop? No fsking way!!!
I AM NOT A RESIDENT OR AN OCCUPANT!!!!
Ads are a cancer growing on almost every form of media there is. Radio stations only play music between the commercials, ads on the net get more and more obtrusive (anyone have the sneezing rhinocerous flying around your screen?)Ive un-installed many decent programs after I updated them and they started popping up adds left and right (Bearshare, Limewire). These companies even force you to watch their ads when you pay to go see a movie. I still buy the products because I have to but the over saturation is almost enough to drive me nutz. Please NO MORE ADS. Thankz
Amazing Quantum Man (User ID: 458715); this sig is available for long-term relationship.
Wow! Somebody actually noticed!
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
I disagree with the article where it questions the ethics of removing the ads. It sounds like the ethics of TiVo and changing the channel during comercials -- most of us think it is ethical, only the greedy^H^H^H^H^H^H sponsers complain. But with electronic ads, it is generally per-hit, so they couldn't complain, only request changes aren't made.
Historically you don't get a whole lot of funding from ads, especially when people have the freedom to remove them. We have seen stories about lawsuits when people block ads, and kickback when Slashdot started subscriptions with responses including many new sites using slash code that take stories directly from /. in addition to their own.
It would be annoying and painful if large corps flodded the sources with ads (more than just the corporate credits in there now) but that would be quickly resolved by cutting those people out of the source trees. On the other hand, if high quality packages are produced with ads (like the current AOL's Instant Messenger) and become successful while remaining Free or Open (why would people subject themselves to ads? could we do self-targeting?) then let them do it.
If a new distro wants to put ads in, let them try. If they are just looking for funding, they should instead put out a good product and sell CDs, manuals, and support. If they need to occasionally ask customers for financial support let them put it out in their mailing list -- these are the people who use the products and care about its survival the most.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
I wouldnt particularly protest about a low bandwidth ad applet that I could have on my GNOME task bar. If it was totally unobtrusive, and just displayed a small low bandwidth banner, with no extra annoying fluff then I wouldnt mind it running, I have enough space for that. As long as it didnt interfere with how my non ad operated desktop is, (and only used 20k of bandwith every minute.. if even that) then I dont see what the problem is?
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
You have a strange definition of theft. Theft is the unauthorized transfer of physical goods from one person to another. Unauthorized use of a number (a copyrighted work is really just one big number) is sometimes restricted by other laws. Watching television without the ads is not theft. Watching public television without paying is not theft. Watching an ad and not purchasing the advertised product is not theft. Modifying free software is most definitely not theft.
Releasing software under a free license, but not expecting anyone to take advantage of that freedom, is a sham. You are misappropriating the cachet of free software.
Limewire already does what the article proposes. The sorcecode has been opened (not sure what license). The free official binary download includes ads.
Someone re-compiled it without the ads or the spyware. The re-compile was called Clean Limewire.
Clean Limewire is for the cheapskates who don't want to pay $8.50 to get the official ad-free version of limewire.
I went looking for the Clean Limewire website to put up a link but they seem to have dissapeared.
Anyone know what hapened to Clean Limewire?
Took you long enough ... I've been carrying this .sig around for what ... four months or so?
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for slashdot.sig (129323052 bytes).
If you write free software you either do this for fun or want to make money on something else, like support, other products or hardware. Just not on people using this particular software. Otherwise, you should charge for software and maybe give source to registered users (Minix used to be like this for long time). Ads by definition are designed to distract me from what I am doing and make me look at them. When I am browsing the web, I am already distracted, so it doesn't matter. But I don't want a computer that distracts me from work, action games or writting serious e-mail. I would rather have one with proprietory software that allows core OS to remain free. I would love if Microsoft released a Linux distro with, let's say, open source VB and .NET and then made money by selling office on top of it. By the way, if I contribute some small piece to Linux, ad-supported desktops are unfair for me because basically people are still using my work to get money.
I think what they're proposing here is a far cry from using something like bluelight. My interpretation of this is that you would voluntarily subject yourself to ads on your desktop and the revenue from those ads would go to support your favorite desktop projects. I wouldn't mind doing that at all. Although if I knew how any ads I'd have to view just to get them a dollar, I might be more inclined to simply make a donation directly.
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
Mozilla 1.0.0 had something like 500,000+ downloads within a very short time of it's release. One of the major features/benefits touted by enthusiatic users (myself included) is the ability to turn off unrequested popup windows (which are 99.9% of the time ads). I'd say that these numbers don't bode well for the success of an OS/desktop featuring advertisements.
I really don't think that capiotolism/commercialism conflict with open source. I really think that combining advertising on a desktop with open-source software would be an excellent way to narrow the digital gap. Finnally, the poor and elderly could get cheap machines without having old hardware. Just think if you figured that the advertising would be worth say $300 you could get an E-machinesqe computer for free. Although there might have to be some EULA stipulation about not removing the advertisements.
I doubt anyone with positive cashflow or available balance on credit card would disagree.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
There is no reason why some group couldn't do this, but it is going to have to be substantially better than anything else out there before large amounts of people use it. It's like Opera: some people will put up with paying or looking at ads if they think it is better than the alternatives, but who would bother if they think the alternatives are better or equal anyway?
There are also a lot of problems with the implementation. Who is going to pay for the ads if anyone can just compile them out anyway? It could be based on views or clicks, but that would probably mean being connected to the Internet on start up (when the ads are supposed to occur, according to the article), which is definitely a problem for dial up users. People would find a way to get around that kind of system in any case.
The implication is that the income from the ads would go to support bandwidth for the groups web page, FTP, CVS, etc. Giving it to the programmers would (for entirely open source projects) raise all the standard issues to do with who ends up getting paid. So if the ads are just supporting the Internet services, wouldn't it be better to simply add or expand Internet advertising? This would be annoying, but I think most people would consider it much less annoying than having the ads right on their computer.
For commercial projects using open source software (along the lines of Lindows) maybe people would put up with ads if they were convinced the product was better than the alternatives. But again, why not try other ways? Many commercial Linux companies have extensive web services which could have ads. Since a company does not have to worry about being independent, maybe they could just get direct sponsors.
I think that this kind of thing might work for some desktop concepts, especially ones that are oriented towards users coming from Windows, but only if the incentives are big enough. In any case, I really can't see the majority of the open source community using it. On the other hand, one of the great things about open source is the choices it can give. Someone could try out ad based OSes or desktops, but someone else will be sure to keep providing an ad free equivalent. The only question will be which turns out to a better, more usable, product.
I think the down fall of quality in every industry comes when its pushed by marketing droids rather than user needs.
/.'ers is to like open source stuff - but open source is fast becoming a brand as much as anything else. just cuz it may be open source or free does not make it great. AOL cd's are free - but we dont like em. (I know bad comparison - so leave the comments at home)
like all the previous crap we heard about push content a few years back - and how all the marketing types jumped with glee at the hype behind this and attempted to setup failed business models around it.
push content is just a bad idea (tm). Don't just agree to this bs because they have attached open source to the idea. its like wearing jeans just cuz they're diesel or CK or whatever... it doesnt make it a better product - it just makes the user forgoe real quality for branding.
the mentality or
anyway - you get the point.
what would *really* make sense is built in anti spyware OS. one that allows you to block any and all traffic to companies and sites whos URLs are not physically typed into the nav bar. also make it impossible for ANY url to pop-up ads or other browser windows. and to notify you when it find a URL that is attempting to do so - and show you a confirmation box that says "this shitty URL is trying to load this "XXXXX" url in a new browser - allow/deny once/deny all?"
Uhm. If it's opensource, doesn't that mean I can just remove the code that displays ads? :X
How is that supposed to work? And besides, who would advertize this way?
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
If I were to ever come across an ad-sponsored desktop, I'd hack that bit of code out of it, recompile, and re-install.
I despise ads. As it stands right now, my host file is about 2 or 3 megs long. Ads have propagated every facet of our existance at this point. I'd like to keep them out of the privacy of my own home.
This is a great illustration of the difference between Free Software and Open Source software.
/every]one, and volunteering to help some company make a buck. I just think it would wind up being "Open" in name only, because no one outside said company would be interested in developing for it...
An ad-supported open-source operating system (OS OS?) *might* work, but how Open would it really be? I mean suppose company X actually starts this. To whom will the Ad revenue go? I assume it would go to their employees, not the "volunteers" who contribute code from outside. So, independent developers would have to be comfortable with this company profiting from their volunteer labor.
Wouldn't the company have to demand copyright on the body of code used by the OS? Either that or give a cut of the ad revenue to volunteers. But based on what? Lines of code contributed? (hello bloat!)
The point is, there's a huge difference between volunteering for a body of software which is guaranteed to be owned by [no
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
My current, non-ad based OSS desktop works just fine, thanks.
1) Ads don't just happen: Someone has to represent the medium to advertisers. What's the inventory available? What's the click-through rate? What's the sale close rate? What are the selects (targeting)? What's the price? Who are your other customers? Are you exposing my brand to happy people, or to people angry about all the dang advertising? What are some success stories? Why should I even bother advertising on your platform? These are generally human-to-human sales interactions.
I love Google's self-serve ads. Maybe someone could write a self-serve automated ad-sales rep? I'd love to see honest reporting on advertising effectiveness (i.e. no human "spin" hiding the crappy return on ads.) This could become the industry benchmark for open ad sales info.
2. Targeting and Privacy: Just throwing any ad out there to anyone won't work in a direct-response medium like the Web (or desktop OS). The privacy issue must be addressed. Once that's solved, people can actually tell advertisers what kinds of ads they want to see and are likely to respond to.
(Though I'm sure no /. reader will ever want to provide any data to anyone, other people out there will.)
3. How often do you really buy stuff? Just because you see a zillion ads every day doesn't mean you buy a zillion things every day. What's the right volume of ads to show to any one person over a given time?
Give serendipity a chance.
but what's wrong with using tech support as a business model for Linux distros? Because tech support universally sucks. To say that it's hard to find someone who is qualified to support a linux distro, pay them well enough so that they won't leave in a few months(weeks?) and then expect to pay their salaries with people who are willing to purchase this support is a gross understatement. Furthermore, the customer base for support is very limited. On one hand, you have corporate support contracts, who are going to be paying enough so that they can usually just afford a consultant or a full time employee, so they'll try to squeeze as much as possible out of the deal or end user support who will end any sort of support incident with "forget it! this is too difficult-I'm going back to Windows!", leaving a frustrated tech with a smoking gun and mural of brainy goo on his cube. Anyone in the middle ground either won't need support or will ask for support on things they just shouldn't be conducting over email or phone calls. ("Can you help me recompile my kernel?") While I don't have suggestions on what would make linux easier to sell, support can only be sold to end users once the desktop interface is ready for prime-time, and corporate support can only be sold via a system of consultants, since the liability issues and configurability make a hairy mess when put together.
According to IRS Publication 561 (Fair Market Value) Donated works of art can be Tax Deducted. If the value is less that $5,000 (per charity) you need trivial documentation. For Values >$20K and >$50K there are additional requirements such as the opinion of an Appraiser or Expert and an 8x10 Photo.
So for example - if every charity or government office which uses Open Source software were to validate a Site License donation of a Work of Art in the appraised amount - Uncle Sam would pay for Open Source by allowing programmers to work part-time Open Source and part-time Tax-Free!
Obviously we would want some test cases - but if tested and proved legal - Open Source would be generously funded by the Government - which I think is best for everyone.
A Friend of mine points out that simply publishing source code in paper format has in the past converted contraband cryptography to Free Speech. Perhaps donating Open Source in bound volumes is enought to convey material value to the Charity and satisfy the requirments of IRS #561.
Trying to advertise within open-source software is pointless: Anybody can simply disable the advertising in the source and use and distribute the advertisement-free version. Why would anybody sit in front of a program they have the source code to and allow it to throw ads in their face periodically?
no. it's bad enough to be subjected to ads for content, but for the os with which to use/get the content? not a snowball's chance in hell.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Let's say everyone agrees to allow the splashscreen in support of say Gnome. Is this semi-involuntary monetary support for one desktop? Is everyone going to be diligent enough (and able) to choose which project(s) to support, or will this tip the balance in favour of the default configuration?
Average price of good 17" Monitor = $200
Average price of good 19" Monitor = $300
So the question becomes one of economics. If you want X amount of screen space and your software is going to waste an inch of it with ads (and annoy you in the process), wouldn't the utility of your 19" monitor decrease to that of a smaller monitor (a loss in value of say $100). In other words, if we are talking about a single primary application like an OS, window manager, or maybe web browser, it makes as much sense to buy something adfree as it does to use something with ads and a bigger monitor.
If an isolated application like Direct Connect has ads, well I don't have a problem with that. There's only one banner ad there. But if an application like a web browser starts out with an ad, then you get that ad and whatever ads are in the site. If a window manager has an ad, you get that ad, the ad in the web browser, and the ad in the web page... This kind of cumulative bombardment won't fly.
Have you ever booted Windows or MacOS and noticed what's packaged with it? What's on the desktop? You think they selected those companies on merit?
For once there is a genuinely funny troll, and he still gets modded down. (Throws up hands in disgust)
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Who wants to be spammed by their desktop?
#define SHOWADS 0
You could distribute it under an open source-like license, and forbid changing the ad code, but chances are it would read and obeyed as much as we all read and love Microsoft's EULAs.
So what does that mean for users? Well, the incentive for the developer to make useful software for us would be like a farmer's incentive to fatten up their pigs so that they'll bring in more cash. Any features that might decrease the value of the users in the advertisers' eyes would be considered "bad for business" -- a developer wouldn't want to decrease the value of the users they're producing by allowing features that give users control over the advertisements, for example.
On the plus side, it won't work with the GPL or most other licenses. As long as users have access to the source code and are able to release modifications, the ads can be disabled, which means advertisers won't pay as much for ads.
Same way avoiding television commercials is stealing
So, when you listen radio do you listen for all commercials to be ethical, or you switch to another chanel. Imagine that you walk on a street and then someone stops you and insist on showing you commertial clip. Would you stop to view it? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't do it. According to your logic, keeping your TV off is already stealing.
BARF!
There are lots of examples of successful community dollar systems, like the well-known Ithaca Hours.
Haven't people started projects like this for Free Software already? I can't find any links--must be using lousy search terms.
That was actually an idea. Well at least we know what happened to the people that brought you such great ideas as ad supported .coms and nuts and gum.
The worst of the web has come from the advertising markets.... Ads go along with invasion of privacy and targeted demographics.. Everything nix stands against.
Corporations sell out because they're trying to make some dude at the top money. Opensource is developed by hobbiests for the most part and if we take that away we're gonna get some really shitty ass software.
Ads would set unix on the desktop back years. Its just a stupid thing to do.
People seems to be saying "Sure, why not? I can remove and recompile." but that is really out of line.
One of the things that makes open source projects so great for users, is the fact that there is no barrier to getting it to do what you want.
Commercial OSes, often go out of their way to hide of obsecure something. In other words, it is in their best interest to make things more difficult for YOU. This could involve making it harder to patch a system, making source more obsecure, making it larger (therefore harder to download and share), etc.
I am not even trying to think of all the things that an ad supported OSS program might do, but you know it is in their best interest to make it hard for you to such off the ads, or even remove the software from your system. I'm sure there's a million other things they could do, but the point is the same.
OSS does not have a goal... It does not have any reason to make life more difficult for you when you want to do something with the program. Any closed source, or adware type system will really take away that; one of the single best things about OSS.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Comment: Some people would argue that M$ operating systems are already chock full of ads.
An ad-sponsored O/S could stand a chance provided:
- The ads would not get in the way
- The product was solid and stable
- The product offered something "extra"
or better than what is available elsewhere
- Privacy were assured
In order for it to succeed as an open-source product, it would also require a couple of additional things:
- A thorough understanding of the
established community (and a
willingness to play by the
established rules)
- A "hook" that would allow access to
additional features (that are not
necessarily open-source) if the ads
were active.
Would I be willing to use an ad sponsored O/S? Yes, I watch commercial TV even though I find the commercials annoying, I understand they are necessary to provide me with the programming I want. I am less sure that I would use an ad
sponsored O/S for business purposes. Perhaps I would if I could pay a fee to remove or reduce the ads. I do not know if I fall within the community norms with my take on this.
One vision that I have is that you buy your computer at Best Buy and you get a blue and yellow O/S with Best Buy tags all over - that would be annoying. But with the small profit margins, I can see how a mass-marketer could see this appeal. They could serve up their weekly
deals to everyone who has bought a computer from them. They could offer MP3s of the CD or DVD you just ordered online and, they could offer you customized services based on your hardware/purchase history.
First of all, it has to be voluntary. Second, it should be advertising channels that we, as the users, should be able to select. In other words, if we want to see sex ads, then we enable that check box. If we want to see more "think geek" ads, then we turn that on. Make it completely voluntary and I guarantee it will work nicely. SOME advertisments are useful in the sense that you can be kept semi-up-to-date with any particular product news from your favorite manufacturer.
First, the sources selling the advertising can get higher rates because the targets are very targetted and willing. This allows the end user to select not only what advertising he is willing to view.
Second, the user can select which projects he chooses to support! This is an important way for end users to contribute in a more direct way to the progress of the projects than interest them the most.
There is a world of feedback that will be available from all of that advertising data and money flow. Popularity and trends can be determined that will more quickly shape the direction of software as it's developed.
And YES, make it possible to turn it all off entirely. Being voluntary is the most important aspect of the idea. When people feel like they are supporting their favorite projects, they become part of what's going on and are not just "end users" but contributors. It's probably the most significant idea for user participation concieved for the open source projects out there.
I give this idea excited approval. I haven't coded anything in so long, I'm barely capable of writing "hello world." Yet I feel the desire to contribute to the projects I enjoy the most and sometimes feel guilty about supplying bug reports or suggestions not knowing how much trouble I cause the programmer if he tries to implement it.
And the cash flow into the projects? I don't know what it might be in terms of volume, but it's got to be better than it is now.
My god...you guys just got together, and are already bickering? Doesn't sound like a long-term relationship is in the cards, boys.... :)
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Well, I'm not ruling out anything, but I'm yet to meet a man, that I'm attracted to. My other personality on the other hand, is a bit queer, so I guess it depends on what state of mind I'm in.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
It would be real hard to fund a project with the small bit of money that comes in by the hits that an advertising banner gets. Perhaps it would work, but maybe a better idea is to do merchandising and mark up the price. Something like "Freedom Downtime" that 2600 puts out clearly does not cost $20.00 to produce, but it's something that people pay more for, because they're getting a product they want and helping a cause they support at the same time. In my experience fundraising (especially for people that like objects or toys if you want to call them that), tacking on a markup for things people already want works better than pulling in large amounts of small donations from advertising, or approaching supporters for large donations. There could be bumper stickers that cost $5.00, paper holders for monitors running for $20.00, stuff like that. This is probably infringing on the territory of that other website, geek something that the Slashdot network runs, but thidea is more for particular development projects
It strikes me that open source software is about, as much as anything else, ethics. Open source licenses are legal encodings of ethical standards. The exact standards differ, of course, based on the different views of the creators... which gives you, the consumer, the right to pick and choose.
Laws aren't automatically "right" just by being laws, and there are many things that are "wrong" that couldn't easily be put into law. If you replace "legal" with "ethical" in your question, it becomes much stronger and more interesting. Instead of "can we get away with it?" the question becomes "is the the right thing to do?"
From my personal standard of ethics, I don't see anything wrong with an opt-IN adware system, with a note in the README or in the installer (if you ship a binary) that says "Hey, we could really use money to help support the software... if you could either write us a check or turn on the ads, we'd appreciate it very much."
But that's just my personal view.... you'll have to arrive at your own. It is, after all, your software. :-)
Oh, absolutely! .. pop-up ads on my desktop instead
of on my web browser. genius. i imagine this will
be the Next Big Thing and will likely revolutionize
the desktop and revitalize the market. Just like web
advertising did. Yep. You bet. Where do i sign up?
Can I IPO yet? Can I? Huh? Please? Can I Can I
Can I?
you freaking morons.
Obvious concerns about only showing while you're away aside, do you want a screensaver to connect to some website somewhere and download new ads?
I don't want my machine compromised by a screensaver. Rooted, scanning, spamming, all while there's an 85% chance I'm away from my desk and not looking. No.
I like music
If you're stupid enough to subscribe to Slashdot, you deserve to have CmdrTaco and friends rip you off.
The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC
While many have taken the route of saying that would just take out the ads since it's open source, I wouldn't waste my time or energy (the little it might take) to even bother with an operating system to bombard me with ads. If I want to be bombarded with ads I'll just go here. Aren't we already forced to view enough ads? It's too bad this was brought up, now Billy is going to get some ideas.
OSS is about software done within a certain philosophical framework. You can't ask "which is more important" without forgetting that.
When will advertising get it that pushing ads in all available space is a waste of time in the Internet age where customers are much more willing and capable of looking for you? With an OSS app there is no way to enforce having an ad-enabled version. Anyone who wants can (and probably will) yank the ad. I certainly would not run an ad-infested version of X or any app without at least considering yanking the annoyance out.
Apart from the obvious (can comment it out, yada, yada), most people already see enough advertising everywhere they look.
Anyway, this also goes against all the ideology associated with OSS (for me, at least.) I'd rather donate directly to the developers. At least you know were your money is going.
The Fortune 1K companines have to learn that with a minimal donation vs the M$ tax they can support and benefit from OSS. Some have, but more need to step up to the plate. If this idea gains a foothold it's all over and OSS will be in the toilet.
THIS IDEA IS VIRAL, AND NEEDS A DOCTOR TO CURE IT!
Gizmos Gagets For Ninjas
Really if it were ads related to linux etc like the ones on /. I wouldn't mind it's just the least a can do...
:)
:) Shoudn't be really hard to do the developers could link to it ez.
But it would be nice if ads were for donations for example we could have a common system to easily make donations and to have the donation tracked and this sytem would be advertised like in the splash screen you would see Project X need 2000$
Your sugeested contribution is 5$ do you want to help them ? And you would only have to say y/n and your cc or paypal accnt would be charged.
We could have something like a hall of fame of donation with who gave most etc.. I'm sure we could make donations work with ads or event without them. We could give prises to a la Air Miles...
I would like to see sourceforge do this.
I'll even give it some tought see if I can start this myself
Do what you wilt shall be the whole of the law Love is the law, love under will Capital drives the will of mankind
configure --without-ads; make; make install;
Are why I'm so glad there's Debian
congratulations, you modded this redundant 12 hours after it was posted. You have done the Slashdot community a valuable service.
I'm pretty sure there are more folks out there that would do the same. And that would provide a lot of not-yet-programmers with an "itch to scratch", as Eric S. Raymond calls it in The cathedral and the bazar (or was it Linus in Just for fun? Dunno, I liked both :)
And once you get the hang, it's a lot easier to modify some more, start fooling around with other code and end up becoming a Linux kernel hacker :)
So yes, in this respect I'd like to see some ad sponsored stuff appear in the Open Source world. If it turns out to be a commercial flop (which I expect), it will at least get some more people working on Open Source projects. And as a result of that, you might no longer need funding...
Just my 2 Eurocents opinion...
Woefdram, l'apprenti sorcier
My point was that I didn't agree with this. Evidently dry wit doesn't come across well in text, eh?
sorry for the confusion.
Let the universe of discourse be wombats...
It was from a group of European companies (as I recall) and had ads in various places - I think the 'start' logo was a VW or BMW badge. I saw this sucker a long time ago (about 8 years..?) in a PC magazine. you could download and use it for free (not GPL back then).
Damned if I can remeber what it was called though. Rest assured it has been tried and as we are not all using it and I cannot even remeber what it was called - it obviouly didn't work.