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?"
/* 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'.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
I can see it now:
"Free as in ad-sponsored"
- 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/
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
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.
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.