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?"
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
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
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
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.
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
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?
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
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.
I think most of us who want to support these projects are more willing to just simply send them some money than to run an ad screensaver.
More direct. More money, too, hasn't anyone noticed that the bottom has entirely fallen out of the internet advertising market? If somethingawful.com can't make enough money off ads to pay for their bandwidth, why do you expect to get any meaningful amount of money from ads that run at a time that the user is known to not be at their computer?
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
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?
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?
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!
Release 0.1: /* DrawAdvertisement(Desktop); */
/* MakeThisReallyObscureCall () */
/* Have many functions contain side-effects */
Release 0.2:
Release 0.3:
Release 0.4:
Modify license. Say hello to competing projects.
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.
That would be fine. In the spirit of the GNU, in fact. Since the ad-supported groups would probably not share the money, the final analysis would be simple; is the money going to the ad-supported OS advancing the project faster than the non-ad-supported OS? If yes, then everyone benefits (even the non-ad group as it incorporated the advances of the ad group into it's project). If no, then everyone uses the non-ad version anyway and project dies on the vine.
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
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.
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.
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.
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!