Linux Today Founder Calls for Boycott of Linux Today

Why? by Rombuu · 2004-06-04 08:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

Are Linux Today's readers too stupid to think for themselves?

--

DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!

Re:Why? by BlueCodeWarrior · 2004-06-04 08:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

Not neccesarily. But I can see the validity in the point of "how can we trust them to post unbiased reviews when they are funded by Microsoft"

I don't patronize the site personally, but I could see (in theory) how M$ could say, "well, we see that you're posting this negative stuff about our product, we think we'll pull out those ads..." and if they're counting on those ad dollars for funding, well, it isn't pretty.
Re:Why? by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2004-06-04 08:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

But what about those who are just venturing into the Linux world and are just getting thier feet wet. There are a lot of those and they don't understand it all yet.
Oh, the poor little babies! We shall have to hold their hands and make sure the big bad Microsoft doesn't molest them! Your benevolent uncle will show you the way!
Good Lord! This is the silliest thing I've ever heard. Those "just venturing" into Linux already have a clue and can protect themselves from M$ FUD. I love this "just venturing" crap, it's like saying when you go down to the strip and pick up hoes' and have them paddle your ass, your "just venturing" to see if you like sex. "just venturing". Good grief.

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Re:Why? by 1000StonedMonkeys · 2004-06-04 08:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

Or, perhaps Microsoft said to themselves, "They're publishing negative articles about our products, let's put some adds up to negate the effect." In that case, it would be in LW's best interest to continue being negative about Microsoft products, lest Microsoft no longer have a need to place adds there.

Or, here's another theory I think is even more plausible:

Microsoft certainly doesn't post to /. because of all the nice things slashdotters have to say about them. If I had to guess, I'd say they place the adds because they look and they see that /. is mostly read by people that use their product. Thus, by placing adds on /. they can target potential switchers. I would imagine the same is true of LW.

Overall, I don't think LW has any reason to be pro-microsoft, even with the adds.
Re:Why? by dougmc · 2004-06-04 08:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

But I can see the validity in the point of "how can we trust them to post unbiased reviews when they are funded by Microsoft
Ok, let's assume that the Microsoft revenue goes away. How can you trust them to post unbiased reviews when they're funded by Redhat? Or Suse, Mandrake, Sun, IBM. LoneTar (is that thing still around?), whatever?
This is a classic problem, one that affects every magazine that accepts advertisements and does reviews. And there's no real answer, short of what Consumer Reports does -- don't accept ads. Except that magazines like to show a profit, and ads are a good way to do that. The other ways, raising your prices or accepting donations, is iffy at best. It doesn't even work for PBS -- even PBS shows commercials (sort of) for their advertisers now.
Ultimately, if you're actually reading `Linux Today', you can probably already see through the Microsoft FUD. So I have to respond to dave (Mr Linux Today founder) with a `No, I'm not going to boycott Linux Today just because they run Microsoft ads. Sorry.' (Of course, I haven't read Linux Today in a long while, so my lack of boycott hardly means anything.)
So, how did dave lose control of Linux Today? Did he sell out in the height of the dot-com craze? (Like everybody else did?) If so, crawl back to your Porche, drive back to your nice, paid off already house, and stop whining.

Boycott? by Skyshadow · 2004-06-04 08:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

Wait, so this Linux advocacy site manages to get Microsoft to pay them to run ads that anyone who actually *goes* to the site will just laugh off anyhow, and we're supposed to *boycott* them?

Jesus Christ, we should be giving these guys a medal!

--
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.

Mommy, M$ isn't playing fair by webguru4god · 2004-06-04 08:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

This seems like a rather harsh approach to take against LinuxWorld, and somewhat childish as well. How do we know that Microsoft is specifically paying for advertisement on LinuxToday, and not just blanket advertising on internet.com?

And then does that mean that we should boycott /. because they often display M$ ads? Or maybe anti-Linux people should boycott Windows-centric sites when they feature advertising from RedHat or Sun.

Seems to me like the best option to take would be to urge LinuxToday to not support M$ advertising if they are indeed given a choice on what they advertise, instead of just boycotting them out of anger.

Re:Mommy, M$ isn't playing fair by FortKnox · 2004-06-04 08:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

I agree. Its knee-jerk reactions like this that give Linux a bad name.

Two words for you guys:
GROW UP!

You are taking away money from the competition, and putting ads on a page that most people ignore anyway. This isn't something to get your panties in a bunch about. Go argue about which editor or distro is the best... it'll make you feel better ;-)

--
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!

Doesn't bother me by dananderson · 2004-06-04 08:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

I suspect the ads are served through some third party or link exchange.

In any case, it doesn't bother me if Microsoft throws money at a Linux-oriented website. I can ignore or read a Microsoft add and I won't melt in anycase.

Re:Doesn't bother me by Trillan · 2004-06-04 09:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

Make sure you click it, too.

whatever by blackmonday · 2004-06-04 08:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

Sounds like a bunch of hot air to me. If MS wants to run an ad with their (biased) study of TCO vs Linux, let them. Trust the readers to be smarter than that. Linux represents choice and freedom, not censorship or religion.

Quitcher bitchin' by Randolpho · 2004-06-04 08:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's money for your rag.

Seriously, so what of Microsoft is anti-Linux. The Linux crowd has been anti-Microsoft for a hell of a lot longer. MS is just trying to catch up, and surprise: they're throwing money your way while they do it.

--
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson

Has this guy even contacted them? by CanSpice · 2004-06-04 08:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

I want to know if this guy has even got in touch with Linux Today in regards to this "controversy." He doesn't mention anything about talking to them, asking them rationally to do something about the Windows ads. It just looks like he's flying off the handle irrationally, and that really detracts from the point he's trying to make.

So, if by millahtime · 2004-06-04 08:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

So, if /. has these adds too (which they do) should we boycott /. too? As I am typing this I am reading a M$ ad on the submit page.

--
Evolution or ID?

Re:So, if by slipstick · 2004-06-04 08:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

Nope, because the similarity is only skin deep.

While /. is primarily pro-linux, Linux is not it's entire reason for being. Information of all types for Nerds is given, including but not limited to Oracle, IBM, your rights on-line, hardware, gaming, PDA's etc.,etc.

LinuxToday is "only" a Linux site. Accepting money
from a biased source to provide FUD is insulting to the community that the site is directed at.

I accept the /. presentation of the Microsoft FUD because this isn't a Linux only site.

--
Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
Re:So, if by gujo-odori · 2004-06-04 10:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

The advertiser's intent is actually not foiled at all.

Why not?

Well, let's first start with what a boycott is supposed to achieve. The intent of a boycott is to make a manufacturer, publisher, or other organization changes its practices by hurting it financially if it doesn't. If you remember the boycott against Nestle over baby formula advertising, you'll recall that people were upset that their advertising strongly implied (if not outright stated) that formula was better than breast milk for babies. Nestle was hardly alone in that, but as probably the biggest player in the market, they became the lightning rod for the criticism.

The trouble with that implying that formula is better, besides the fact that it's simply untrue, is that baby formula needs to be mixed with water. However, in many of the developing countries where they were aggressively marketing formula, both sources of adequately clean water and knowledge of basic practices like boiling the water to make it clean and then using it immediately, refrigerating mixed formula and how long it can be kept, etc., were very scarce. However, the advertising campaigns showing pictures of fat, healthy, smiling babies (in countries where skinny, undernourished babies with inadequate medical care were common) was highly effective. A lot of formula was being needlessly sold to poorly informed parents. The sale of formula is not in itself wrong, of course, nor is formula. Some mothers do not have their milk come on and could not feed their babies without formula. Others don't have enough milk, especially if they have twins or triplets. In those cases, formula is literally a life-saver.

However, because of the scarcity of proper information as to how to properly prepare and store formula, and of its relative value Vs. breast milk causing it to be bought needlessly, many babies were becoming sick, and quite a few dying, as a result of being fed on formula instead of breast milk. Not to mention, of course, that formula is expensive and many poor people were being led to buy it unnecessarily. I used to live in SE Asia and both my kids were born there. Imported, western-brand formula was about 1/3 the price it is here in the U.S., but the average national income where I was living is about $100/month. It was more in the large cities, of course, but that gives you some idea of the relative cost of baby formula.

Now, if you look at a can of baby formula in poor countires, it has instructions on how to prepare formula and boil water written in the local language, and it also states clearly on the can that breast milk is best for your baby.

The boycott worked because a lot of people refused to buy any Nestle product. This hurt Nestle financially and they modified their practices to satisfy their critics and the boycott was called off.

Now, let's relate this to your use of privoxy.

You never see the ad. /. gets the money. Why do they get the money? B/c no one knows you never see the ad (unless they are paid on click-through, in which case they wouldn't get paid anyway unless you clicked the ad). That's problem one.

Problem two is that the ads aren't aimed at you. You are convinced. The ads are aimed at people who are on the fence or who are currently using Windows but are curious about alternatives such as Linux. You can rest assured that most of them are not using an ad blocker. So, they see the add, some may click through, and some of those will buy into the FUD and the advertiser's intent is achieved: a potential defector from Windows to Linux was stopped.

Now, the founder of Linux Today doesn't seem to get how to boycott, either. If you want to effectively boycott a publication (either Internet-based or paper-based, it doesn't matter), you need to do these things:

1) Write to them and tell them you are boycotting their publication and all of its advertisers, and tell them why;

2) Contact each of those advertisers and tell them the same thing, m

And will you... by Richard_at_work · 2004-06-04 08:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

replace their lost ad revenue yourself? At least offer them an alternative before you start deriding them for doing something. Oh, and where the hell do YOU get off selling your creation and then acting as if you have a say in it after that, you dont, you gave it up for money so dont preach to me.

Please, these aren't tobacco ads by ChiralSoftware · 2004-06-04 08:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

I appreciate this guy's point, but:

The publishing business is rough. You have to do what you have to do. I read Maxim magazine. They have a huge circulation, are very popular, they get plenty of advertisers, and yet they have to run cigarette ads because they buy some of the most expensive ad slots. What can you do? Ads ultimately are just offering consumers a choice. And these aren't tobacco ads; MS just uses some very agressive/slightly illegal marketing tactics. This isn't selling a product which is known to be addictive and cause cancer.
What's wrong with Microsoft? They make some truly great software (Office) which runs fine on Linux. I'm a 100% Linux desktop user, and guess what, I buy Microsoft software to run on my Linux box! I don't have a Windows partition either.
We're all techies here, right? We all believe that technology products should be evaluated on their merits. Does that somehow not apply to Microsoft products? If Microsoft ____ is the best solution for a given application, shouldn't we acknowledge that? Again, this is from a 100% Linux desktop user, who has been a 100% Linux desktop user for years, even back in the old painful days when the best browser was Netscape 4.something. Now I have Mozilla, IE and Konqueror to choose from, all on one desktop, and I chose based on their merits.

-----------
WAP news

Is this guy for real? by rjdohnert · 2004-06-04 08:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why in the bluest blazes of hell would we stop reading Linux today? Why is eveything so, "Linux or bust" I personally use them both and I like them both. Linux has its uses as does Windows and for some things I like using Windows more. Get a life its advertising as the previous readers have said the readers will decide for themselves what they want to use.

Re:Ads on Slashdot by Total_Wimp · 2004-06-04 08:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

And this is the community with the battle cry, "Free, as in speech"?

They aren't playing fair by phorm · 2004-06-04 08:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

I've seen a lot of these ads. Their comparison between windows servers and linux servers is really stupid. It's the same tricks that many companies use: compare with different hardware specs, unoptimized kernels/applications, and don't take into account viruses and other related issues. It's not right and I really do get sick of seeing them on OSDN and other networks.

That being said, I understand that OSDN and other sites do need revenue. I also think that most linux users realize the ads are bunk. Rather than a boycott, I'd like to see pro-Linux advertisement in the same way (with real stats) that shows the advantages of linux over windows.

How about graphs comparing: Infection rate, loss due to downtime, webpage serving stats with optimized machines on the same hardware, etc?

Re:Ads on Slashdot by Frizzle+Fry · 2004-06-04 08:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

I've always thought of /. as a very pro-linux community

The slashdot community is pro-linux. But this isn't about the community, this is about ads. The ads reflect the advertiser running them. They aren't necessarily endorsed and loved by the editors of the site. Dave Whitinger seems to believe that the fact that an ad is run means that the site supports or endorses it. This is ridiculous. If this were the case, it would mean that every advertisement would be paying for the editors of the site to endorse the product advertised. That's not what we want. Ads should not be a reflection of the views of the site; encouraging us to view them as such threatens the site's integrity by tying its content to the identity of its sponsors. It's better to create a clear separation between the sites editorial views and the money given by advertisers, so that we believe the views we are getting are unbiased. Telling us to treat the sites ads as paid endorsements works against that goal.

--
I'd rather be lucky than good.

Re:Ads on Slashdot by Openstandards.net · 2004-06-04 08:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

So, free speech now means being silent when corporate cash is used to spread FUD diluting the truth?

Boycotting is speech and democracy combined.

--

Open Standards Portal

Re:Ads on Slashdot by Openstandards.net · 2004-06-04 08:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

I believe there's a difference between ads selling a product or service that is unpopular, and ads that deliberately spread fud to counter the purpose and energies put into the community the site supports.

Would you want to support a pro-life site that had advertisements for Planned Parenthood? How about a cancer victim support site with cigarette ads?

--

Open Standards Portal

Re:Money's flowing in the right direction by transient · 2004-06-04 09:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Microsoft (theoretically) makes more than $2000 from that advertisement. A well-run company will always try to do two things: lower expenses and raise revenue. When a company decides to spend money, it (again, theoretically) only does so if it expects to make more money back as a result. ROI isn't just a TLA.

That being said, it's impossible to tell how much money Microsoft made from your brother's site. But just because Microsoft is spending money doesn't mean they're losing money.

--

irb(main):001:0>

Re:Ads on Slashdot by Davgeary · 2004-06-04 09:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

I find the call for a boycott astounding. Do we not want people to try the different options available to them and decide which is superior?

Are we so unsure of the superiority of Linux that we believe that a simple banner ad could derail that process of testing and deciding? All the banner ads in the world won't change the basic truths of how things work. I use WinXP at work, because that's what they choose. I use RedHat at home, because that's what I choose. More information is always better than less information when it comes to making decisions.

Dave G.

--
/* No Comment */

i don't get it by pizza_milkshake · 2004-06-04 09:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

if the ads "work" then LinuxToday's readership will stop using Linux and thus stop reading LinuxToday.

if the ads "don't work" then no one agrees with them and the advertisers are wasting their money. either way, what's the problem?

Re:Ads on Slashdot by bmw · 2004-06-04 09:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

More information is always better than less information when it comes to making decisions.

Yes but what about misinformation?

Lemmie get this straight by Schnapple · 2004-06-04 09:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

Guy creates website
Guy raises website
Guy sells website/leaves/whatever
Website runs into trouble staying afloat
Website turns desperate and runs ads counter-intuitive to what it promotes
Guy who is opposed to ads on formerly his website asks people to boycott website until they stop running the ads which aim to hurt their own cause

What's next, boycott leading to lost revenue from unsold ads and then website closes? Does he really want the website to go out of business rather than serve offensive ads?

And what does it say that Microsoft are the only ones willing to run Linux related ads? By boycotting Linux Today and ensuring it closes (which it probably will since thanks to less readers no one else will want to advertise there) won't people just be hurting the cause they aim to achieve?

And doesn't this guy realize that by this kind of outburst he's just promoting the "Linux Terrorist/Zealot" image?

--

Schnapple

Re:Ads on Slashdot by IWannaBeAnAC · 2004-06-04 09:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

More information is always better than less information when it comes to making decisions.

Of course. But Microsoft advertisments are the absolute bottom of the heap of crud and lies. Could you really recommend to people to base purchasing decisions on a Microsoft advert?

I can make up my own mind, thanks dave by djtack · 2004-06-04 09:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why should they refuse ads from Microsoft? Aren't the readers smart enough to make up their own minds about the benefits of Linux? This reminds me of a recent "outrage" when The Nation ran some full-page ads for Faux News. Most of their readers just laughed at Fox for throwing their money away.

I'd rather that organizations who sell ad space have less editorial control. For instance, Adbusters and the MoveOn PAC have repeatedly been denied airtime on network TV, even though they are able to pay for it, simply because the network execs don't like their message. This is a far greater injustice.

Re:Ads on Slashdot by 0racle · 2004-06-04 09:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

If your buying a book about Linux, or Unix in general with an aim to deploying something, you do realize that Microsoft IS an alternative solution. Amazon and Microsoft have done nothing wrong. Your searching for a book on say Operating Systems, guess what category MS falls into.

Stop whining about everything, it makes you sound like little children throwing a temper tantrum when things don't go your way.

--
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."

Re:And this might be worth some concern by symbolic · 2004-06-04 09:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

As long as sucking on Bill's teat doesn't create any issues with respect to journalistic integrity, I'm not worried, and find it rather funny that M$ is supporting the competition.

Re:Ads on Slashdot by Openstandards.net · 2004-06-04 09:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

I would agree with you, if the issue was government cencorship.

But, this is democracy in it's purest, not centralized government control.

He's asking individuals to make an individual choice. You are free to choose who you patronage, and you are free to not be influenced by his article or his request that you consider offering your patronage elsewhere, presumably Linux sites that don't host anti-linux slogans.

He's not asking a central dictator to pass a law forbidding free speech.

--

Open Standards Portal

Re:Ads on Slashdot by coupland · 2004-06-04 10:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sorry, you're making a fundamental mistake if you think this boycott is wrong. Yes, people should be free to pick and choose, and compare Linux to Windows and choose Windows if they think it's better, and to say so, publicly, and in advertisements. And people should also be allowed to boycott sites companies or products that they don't like. And they should be allowed to do it even for such illogical reasons as "I love Linux, and I hate Windows". Just smile, shake your head, and go on about your day. You don't have to agree, nor does that make them wrong. Just two different, and perfectly valid, opinions.

Re:Ads on Slashdot by Maestro4k · 2004-06-04 10:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Are we so unsure of the superiority of Linux that we believe that a simple banner ad could derail that process of testing and deciding?

You're missing the point, we're not scared of the TCO studies, we know them to be FUD, and could easily explain how and why to a boss/etc. The problem is that having ads that promote Microsoft at the cost of Linux on a Linux news site gives the impression of lack of confidence in the content on that site. If you were a pointy-haired boss and your IT guys wanted you to read an article on Linux Today and you see those ads panning Linux are you going to be swayed by the article any at all? Most likely not, as the ads have given you the preconceived notion going into the article that Linux costs more than the Microsoft stuff you're already using.

In fact most PHBs would probably see the ads and not bother reading the article.

Re:Ads on Slashdot by bit01 · 2004-06-04 10:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

Agreed. There is an additional factor though.

It's possible to stop free speech not only with too little message but also with too much noise.

No person can interpret every message out there. Large corporations can and do try to crowd out alternative points of view by the sheer volume of their message. Look at Coca-Cola/McDonalds. How many Coke/McD ad's have you seen? The purpose of their ad's is not to inform you of something you already know but to crowd out the competition's viewpoint. Mindshare is everything.

Having said that I have no problem with open source web sites taking M$ money for limited banner ad's because as long as they are not lying it presents a valid, alternative point of view.

Not surprisingly microsoft.com doesn't allow quid pro quo for exactly that reason. Because M$ presents an unbalanced viewpoint I have no problem with sites like slashdot trying to balance that out.

I have a big problem with the astro-turfers though - they should do jail time for fraud.

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

Re:Ads on Slashdot by shaitand · 2004-06-04 10:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

One amendment which unfortunately invalidates your point... on this subject at least:

"More information is always better than less information when it comes to making decisions."

More ACCURATE and CORRECT information is always better than less information when it comes to making decisions.

The problem is that these ads point to false and doctored information. When a CEO is going to linuxtoday because he's being asked to make a multi-million dollar switch and wants to have a peek at what he's buying... well there's nothing wrong with him seeing accurate information from both sides. But when he goes to linuxtoday and sees links to slander published by Microsoft... that's pretty serious. To the level it should be illegal and may well be an abuse of their monopoly.

Microsoft isn't actually allowed to do anything to support or encourage their own status as a monopoly after all.

Re:And this might be worth some concern by cshark · 2004-06-04 10:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's funny isn't it?

I would personally take ads from Microsoft or Google, or anyone who wanted ads on any of my web sites. The more the better. It's not really an issue of integrity. It's an issue of getting paid. I like getting paid. It supports things like my smoking habit, and my patch habit, and my food and shelter habit. These things might not sound important if you're living with mom, but trust me. These are the things that matter.

Hey wouldn't it be funny if /. or Linux Today posted the Microsoft ads, but allowed comments on them? That would be a riot. In fact, you might even be able to work out a deal with the beast where their own people can post anti Linux comments to go along with the ads. It would be funny to shoot them down, and it would support the open source community.

It's all in good fun.

--

This signature has Super Cow Powers

YEAH, FUCK FREEDOM OF SPEECH! by autopr0n · 2004-06-04 10:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

DAMN MICROSOFT, DAMN THEM TO HELL.

The audacity to pay you to express their opinions, and not only that, but opinions that say mean things about your favorite operating system!!

When will the madness end.

Seriously, you don't have a right not to be offended, and being offended about the OS wars is about the lamest thing evar. As long as the ads are clearly labeled, they should be accepted. Rather then calling for a boycott, write articles explaining why the ads are misleading. M$ will probably pull them themselves if you do. If there's editorial pressure to change the content to better suit the advertisers, then there's a problem. And that should be the problem discussed.

Slashdot runs Microsoft ads, there are lots of people who like working on both windows and Linux (shock, horror!)

Oh well, whatever. I have a suspicion that this boycott will fail miserably.

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

MS ads on Linux websites? Hey, thier money's good by dmccunney · 2004-06-04 11:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm sympathetic, but not overly so.

Websites cost money. The cost for the time of the folks who code them and supply the content; they cost for the server reources that host them; and they particularily cost for the bandwidth they use to provide access to them. The more popular a site gets, the greater that last cost becomes.

Where does the money come from? In most cases, advertising. A few sites have successfully implemented a subscription model for "premium" content, but most rely on ads.

Microsoft has a *lot* of money, and can afford to advertise on half the websites in the known universe. It's no surpise they should make a big push on Linux oriented sites, since Linux is thier principal OS competition.

Personally, I'd hold my nose and take the money. The folks who visit sites like Linux Today are usually sophisticated enough to see through the hype, and not be swayed by MS FUD. Those that aren't sophisticated enough are probably not good candidates for conversion to the First Church of Tux in any case.

The alternative for purists may be that the site goes under, because MS ads made the difference between enough revenue to keep going, and losing your shirt.
______
Dennis

Slashdot Mirror

Linux Today Founder Calls for Boycott of Linux Today

41 of 744 comments (clear)