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
/* DrawAdvertisement(Desktop); */
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
The first OS project on the ad-sponsored desktop would be the 'GNU Ad-Removal Project for the OS Ad-Sponsored Desktop'.
Well, at least until everyone recompiles with all the ad software stripped out.
Being open source, people can do 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
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.
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
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
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 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."
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.
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
Take a look at Windows Messenger (aka MSN Messenger). An integral part of Windows XP - almost impossible to remove for your average user and thus, for all intents and purposes, *part* of the OS.
Now, what do you see at the bottom of the latest version? Ads...
*sigh*
Janie took my gun...
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
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
Pity I have to use IE at work, although installing Mozilla keeps getting more and more tempting...
Yes. If advertising on websites didn't work, why would there be ads at all?
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
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?
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
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
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
the article does say "an ad sponsored version", so it seems to me that their poll is asking whether users would optionally use this version to support development, with the choice to use the ad-free version as usual. so ad-blockers would be unnecessary.
given that, this might be an easy way to support your favorite OSS projects. an interesting idea at least.
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.
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).
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?"
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"
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"
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)
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
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
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.
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.
- 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/
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.
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.
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
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
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!
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.
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
The quote is "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" and Benjamin Franklin said it in his Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
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!
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).
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.
/*
{lots of ad code here)
*/
Open source and adware are inherently incompatible.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
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'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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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/
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.
True. The point I was getting at though is that they do provide income. Some sites are able to fully pay for their operational costs through ads, and others just do it for added income.
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
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
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.
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!?!
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?
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.
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).
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?"
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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 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. :-)
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
Not true.
I run XP pro on my main home machine, and MSN messenger installed with that (then upgraded to latest version) has advertisements.
Janie took my gun...
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.