Slashdot Mirror
Linux Today Founder Calls for Boycott of Linux Today
dave writes "I founded and managed Linux Today in 1998, bringing it up from nothing into the most powerful and large Linux news website in the world, in less than a year. I am now calling on the Linux community to boycott my creation until its current owners stop accepting money from Microsoft to publish blatantly anti-Linux/pro-Microsoft ads."
I was shocked to find the very same ads mentioned in the article on this site a while back. I've always thought of
01000001 01011001 01000010 01000001 01000010 01010100 01010101
I thought they were satirical editorial cartoons!
I founded and managed Slashdot from its inception to the present, bringing it up from nothing into the most powerful and large Linux news website in the world. I am now calling on the Linux community to boycott my creation until its current owners stop accepting money from Microsoft to publish blatantly anti-Linux/pro-Microsoft ads.
--CmdrTaco
Are Linux Today's readers too stupid to think for themselves?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
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.
do they pick the ads or are they through a service? i am not sure if it makes it any better.... but for example if you get ads from google and are a tech related site i am sure you will be hit with M$ ads as well as whatever else.
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.
...here.
I sympathize with his points, and it's not just LinuxToday. I received the July 2004 (odd enough, that) copy of Dr. Dobbs Journal and thought "wow, it's really getting to be pretty thick". Then I realized that the middle 40% of the magazine was a long Microsoft advertisement. After ripping that out, there wasn't much left - except for 4 different articles on Java-to-COM-and-ActiveX bridges. Crikey.
The Army reading list
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.
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.
These same ads are often the ones in the top bar of slashdot.. Occasionally there's a vertical one on the main page that's pretty much the same thing.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Sure
I'm just wondering ... how effective are Windoze adds on MS-bashing sites ? IMHO it's more of a problem with the advertising company, not linuxtoday.
The Raven
I read nothing in the complaint to suggest that Linux Today's content has been compromised by these adverts. Instead, the entire complaint seems to be purely that Microsoft advertises, and the advertising itself is Linux-hostile.
That's fine. And I expect most readers will ignore what Microsoft has to say, but be delighted they're funding Linux.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
You found a good place to complain. Slashdot runs Microsoft adds about how "mainframe Linux" is so much more expensive than Windows. The adds even site a study that was thouroughly discredited in slashdot news stories.
OSDN also display same ads. BOYCOTT DevChannel, freshmeat, Geocrawler, IT Manager's Journal, Linux.com, NewsForge, Slashdot, SourceForge.net, ThinkGeek, Animation, Factory, Mediabuilder.
Boycott never worked (except for Gandhi) and will not work. Silly
Slashdot has the same exact anti-Linux, pro-Microsoft ads. I've tried bringing this up, but was rejected.
Imagine if it read like this:
"I'm now calling on the Linux community to boycott Slashdot until its current owners stop accepting money from Microsoft to publish blatantly anti-Linux/pro-Microsoft ads."
I personally would call upon the community to click every Microsoft ad they see. They get cheap advertising if nobody clicks on them. And they're not going away if you don't. Microsoft is definitely the high bidder on most of our sites.
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
Slashdot is the wrong place to advocate a boycott of Linux today, tomorrow, or any other day!
In any case, michael should look twice at those headlines before posting them - "from the doh department" indeed.
People still see ads in their web browsers? How 1997!
Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton
If we are to boycott, how are we to know when they've stopped displaying the M$ ads?
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 /. 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?
I don't see any ads with FireFox.
Mike http://thenextgenerationofradio.com
Why, post it on slashdot of course!
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.
-----------
WAP news
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.
Is it me, or do people pretty much don't care? If Microsoft wants to advertise in their competitions magazine, then let the Magazine decide if it's good for their products or not...
A Boycott will work just like the do not buy gas this day works...
"Is all that we see or seem But a dream within a dream?" -Poe
...but I was horrified by the AOL ads! Boycott now!!
You click on the link and it takes you to another linux Today page, with slightly more clipping (WTF) . Only when you click the second link, do you get to see the actual article.
Two clicks to visit a External Article, No thanks.
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
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?
...but unfortunately they tend to only read headlines. if the headline is a bunch of microsoft FUD, then it makes your job just that much more aggravating.
I try to avoid conversations like this:
PointyHairedBoss: "Why are we using this Unix crap!?"
Me: "Because, you stupid wanker, it has been up for 745 days without crashing and without any problems. And big woop if I cost a little more if your systems are stable and secure!? Now get outta my server room!"
01100111 01100101 01110100 00100000 01101111 01110101 01110100 00100000 01101101 01101111 01110010 01100101 00101110
Way back in the 90s, my brother banded together a bunch of his friends to start a company and put up a web site. It eventually became one of the leaders in it's field with millions of hits per day (it's a sports site that is now run by one of the big television networks). My brother's a big proponent of open source, he's got an ultra-low Slashdot ID (less than 100), the web sites he's built have all been done under Linux and Perl, and has contributed to various open source projects pretty extensively (eg, xemacs, mysql). When the web site was just big enough to attract advertising, they made a $2000 booking from Microsoft, and I admonished him for doing business with the devil. He replied, "yeah, but the money's flowing in the right direction."
Who among us wouldn't rather money flow from Microsoft rather than to them, especially when the recipient is an open-source advocate?
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
I really don't get upset by the M$ ads in Linux Magazine or on Linux Today. (GWB's negative tv ad's for his re-election irk me more).
Let Bill bankroll Linux web sites and magazines with ad's that Linux people will just laugh at. If they are foolish to take out a centerfold magazine ad, use it to wrap fish!
Boycott a site because it runs ads (likely served by an outside provider) that you don't like?
I realize it's a sore subject when you bring up capitalism within a community that shouts FREE from the top of its lungs, but your request bothers me. Are you afraid that LinuxToday users are going to convert to Windows because of a banner ad? Or that Microsoft is going to influence those masses of Linux users?
I thought the "Free" in "Free Software" was meant as "Free Speech"? Now there's a boycott effort in the free software community to try and limit MS's freedom of speech?
Ok, so I'm no big fan of MS either, but I must conclude that anyone who takes part in such an effort has lost any moral argument about "free software" being at all about "free speech".
My
Should I worry that there's a "Anti-Microsoft bias" since there was no linuxtoday link in the story?
:)
Not that I care, but Linuxtoday hasn't been slashdotted yet.
I'm calling bullshit here. This guy sells his site to someone else to generate a profit. He then proceeds to bitch and moans when the current owners sell add space, also for a profit, and an add apears that the he doesn't agree with. It's complete and total bullshit.
If he really cared about that site he wouldn't have sold it. Instead, he sells out to some corporate whore and then has the audicity to bitch and moan when said corporate whore, acting as all corporate whores do, sells out by selling add space to some other corporate whore who spreads FUD. Newsflash buddy, you sold out just the same as the current owners are selling out.
I have no problem with people who start something and then sell it. It's called capitalism baby, but don't bitch and moan when whoever buys it does something you don't like. You sold the thing, if it was that important you shouldn't have sold it, but you did, so shut up and move on.
Flame me all you want, but things like this tick me off. Oh and don't give me this "but the spirit of the site is being violated" crap. If he cared so much about the spirit of the site, as I've said over and over again, he wouldn't have sold it.
I knew this day would come. Emperor Gates has foreseen it. Together we can rule the empire, father and son.
It is your destiny *breathes heavily*
You also have to tell them that you're boycotting their product, and why. The best link I could find was to contribute a news story to their site.
I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.
Pro microsoft doesn't mean anti-linux. It just means ant-everythingelse. Same with being pro-linux... you're anti-everything_that_isn't_linux.
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?
slashdot.org
OK, I work for Slashdot, but am not writing in any official capacity :)
;)
- Slashdot takes advertising.
- Some of the advertising Slashdot takes is from Microsoft.
- Microsoft advertising is paid for in U.S. dollars.
- The editorial side neither sells the ads nor chooses the advertisers; whether the ad at the top is for Microsoft, Red Hat, or The Estate of Jonas Savimbi, I'm just as surprised as anyone else by the particular banner that appears.
Above is just to point out that the ad-choice decision is not one I make
However (But! Nevertheless!), I don't think it's all that important anyhow. So long as ads are respectful of your browser (I hate Flash ads, and it goes without saying that no one is friends with popup ads or other eye-pokers), their content doesn't concern me a whole lot. (Could there be exceptions? Yes. But the MS ads I've seen on Slashdot, for example, have been tame as a churchmouse. Most of them don't even rise to the level of puffery, more straight 'product exists' notification.)
Ads for Microsoft Visual Studio appear on Slashdot; a lot of readers use that or similar products in their work. Ignoring the possibility that readers use source-secret software would be dumb on the part of the advertisers; they would be ignoring a rationally valuable resource. I'd prefer that people use more free, Free software --and they will. But I'm confident enough that people will choose open source stuff on their own for their own reasons that I don't think advertisements for The Other Kind are a huge concern. What would it say if they were? (Solar and wind power is great; there are still ads for gasoline generators in the back of Mother Earth News.)
I like seeing IBM and other companies push their open-source agendas (parallel and connected to their other agendas) in ads and other forums, but here, too, I don't think advertisements matter except as an input; people will still make up their own minds based on multiple, sometimes ineffable factors.
As at least one other poster has commented, wouldn't you rather the money flowed this direction than the other?
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
- 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
Microsoft (theoretically) makes more than $2000 from that advertisement.
Are you sure? Advertizing bathing suits to Eskimos doesn't necessarily guarentee a return on that money.
The website for Linux Today is very blatantly about Linux. Linux users have a high probability of being anti microsoft.
While I think the chance of pissing off Linux readers is very high and thus losing readership, thus losing hits, thus losing money, I also think such an add has a very small possibility of dragging people away from Linux and towards microsoft's offerings, thus this is a mistargeted ad with little chance of making money.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Given the state of loathing for the ad-driven market today, how truly serious is this?
Do, or do not most people simply, mentally, tune ads out of their perceptions?
Besides, it's advertisment. What kind of a fucking numbskull suddenly expects advertisment to actually contain anything resembling the truth? That goes counter to the entire history of advertisment AS A WHOLE!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Let me continue this silly thought...
"...I then sold Linux Today to internet.com for shitload of cash. I am told that they no longer lube the server transitors with tofu. I promise to donate the shitload of cash internet.com paid me for Linux Today to starving programmer / gamers in the inner-city."
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
ads? what ads?
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Once again you missed the point entirely. Slashdot is not a "Linux only" site. It is what they say it is, "News for Nerds". Linux Today on the otherhand is a "Linux only" site. It is just plain stupid and/or greedy to place anti-linux ads on a site that promotes linux and only linux, especially when the studies they cite are biased and FUD-filled.
Slashdot is corporate-owned; I don't think a lot of people realize that. The very day Slashdot stuck banner ads on their stories was the day it lost all credibility for me.
If Slashdot lost all credibility then why are you still here?
Time makes more converts than reason
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.
If Microsoft wants to advertise on a website with a anti microsoft stance, what does it hurt for that website to take the money?
It does no harm at all. I always laugh around election seasons when candidates start running radio ads. There is a local conservative station, and last election cycle Ellen Taucher (democrat) was running ads on that station nonstop. The radio station cannot say no to the ad, because politicians have written the law so you can't say no to their ads, and they get a cut rate too. Without going off on a tangent, the effect of these commercials were this.
#1 She spent a lot of money.
#2 She reached a constituency which was likely to vote a straight repub party ticket, and
#3 The conservative radio station made money.
My advice to you is to laugh. Laugh as you receive their funds, and laugh as they go into the bank. If Ford wants to advertise on a website catering to Die Hard Honda enthusiasts, why not take Fords money?
"Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
Has anyone online ever called a "boycott" that actually turned out successfully?
Calling a boycott is the new fallback insult of today. "Well, I'll just call a boycott--take that!"
Apparently we're boycotting the RIAA, the MPAA, software patents, Microsoft, and more.
"Sufferin' succotash."
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.
Don't you realize that this is all part of MICROSOFT'S BIG PLAN?
What'd Steve Ballmer say like last freaking month?
"It's my goal that you can't go anywhere on the internet without seeing a Microsoft logo."
Slashdot.org: Check.
Linux Today: Check.
Way to go team.
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
If they find the ads distasteful they aren't forced to view them. Conversely, the site has every right to show the ads. Both sides have their rights, and both have to accept the consequences. Viewers might miss some quality content, but you only piss off your audience so long before the go along with a bunch of advertising revenue.
Also, think of this: Microsoft has seemed quite assured of its superiority but how often do you see IBM ads touting Linux on a Microsoft-branded site such as MSNBC, MSN.COM, Slate etc? Or Sun pushing Java? Or Oracle boasting about their powerful databases? They aren't there with ads AT ALL much less ones that are critical of Microsoft's alternatives.
It has nothing to do with being unsure--it is not professional and looks like desperation (it screams "we'll take advertising money from anyone who offers it to us"). I can completely understand why people are angry.
The ads MS has on Slashdot and other sites are tolerable because THESE SITES DON'T SPECIALISE IN LINUX. They are for general-interest audiences. I don't even have a problem with MS ads on Linux sites if they were relevant (maybe advertising tools for interoperability with other OSes for example, or showing an XBox ad on a gaming or XBox hacking article.
The problem is the ads don't sell their product, they are focused on crapping all over Linux. There is no room for that kind of material on a Linux specialty site, not even in the ads.
LinuxToday should put in small letters under each advertisement (replacing version numbers as appropriate):
I like the Microsoft ads, though. It means that Microsoft is openly acknowledging that Linux is competition -- something they didn't do a few years ago. Plus they give me a good laugh every time I sit and watch one.
After sitting here and reperatedly hitting refresh (over 200 times), I have yet to see any MS ads on LT. Ive seen ads for everything else - Bellsouth, Rackspace, Netzero, Symantec - but not Microsoft. Show me these ads, I say, /then/ you can rant.
Are Linux Today's readers too stupid to think for themselves?
Rombuu, do you enjoy beating your wife? Come on, that's a really old troll. Ask a question that has no right answer and ignores clearly stated points. Here are those points:
All are legitmate. Microsoft adds are irritating and I hate seeing them. Besides being blatantly false, they are as visually annoying as any porn add. Running such garbage casts doubt on your editorial integrity and lessens the impact of your content. Worse, they might become dependent on M$ and join the long line of worthless Wintel publications ready to say anything. These are issues worth considering.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
He doesn't like the ads and he would have rejected them. But he couldn't because he was not in the position any more.
There are sound reasons for every publisher to discard ads: too cheap, too offending, too late.
But if a competitor buys ad-space from you it always means that you are doing alright. Otherwise the competitor wouldn't mind spending money. Ads mean that a competitor takes you serious. And he's funding you without obligations.
I see lots of ads in Linux/Unix affine publications with Microsoft advertisments. I don't oppose that. If Microsoft PR thinks they want to spend money to have printed ads, pop-ups, banners or other (strictly seperated) forms of advertisment in a Linux magazine, it's pefectly OK as long as ads and editorial content doesn't get mixed.
Or does the submitter suggest that editorial content and advertisements are no longer strictly separated in this case? That would be a grave accusation indeed. And if he wants to raise only the slightest suspicion that is the case then he has to come up with citations, examples, precedences to prove his point.
It's funny isn't it?
/. 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.
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
It's all in good fun.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
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.
I guess you don't keep up with current events.
VA Linux is no more. They became VA Software years ago, changed almost all of their internal systems to Microsoft, and only hawk proprietary software (SourceForge).
IIRC, VA Software has little or nothing to do with this site anymore.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
For example during the 1970's Cesar Chavez (who is for hispanics what Martin Luther King Jr. is for the blacks) led the nation in boycotting grapes. The effect was great enough to force the land owners to renegotiate favorable terms with the migrant land workers.
But you are right that in most cases the issue really isn't a big enough deal for people to bother. Also in this case the supporters did a very good job bringing things to the public eye, handing out flyers in front of grocery stores, to get people thinking about it right before they made a decision. Much more effective than posting in your blog, or a stupid chain email.
A) You shouldn't have sold out.
B) It's free-as-in-speech, baby. Suck it up.
Yes, it has worked before. If you recall back to the civil rights time frame there was a bus company in montgomery alabama that got boycotted by black riders. Basicly, in the end, they stopped riding, bus company almost goes broke and finally compiles, black people could sit wherever they wanted and didn't have to move if someone else wanted to sit there. Atleast that's the jist of the story. So to answer your question, yes, boycotts work, it just requires people to stick to it.
Jisho - A Japanese English German Russian French Dictionary for the rest of us.
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
I don't care! I am not going to boycott Linux--not today, not ever! For me it is clear that I should use Linux even though people like Darl McBride want otherwise. I just don't care!
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Actually, privoxy doesn't work that way.
Privoxy is a web proxy, not a browser plugin. That means it slipstreams itself in between your browser and the server. When using privoxy, your actual web browser never actually directly requests anything from the web site itself. All of its requests go through privoxy, and (crucially) privoxy does not actually pass all of the incoming requests through to the remote server.
The result is that when you go to slashdot's home page and there is an ads.osdn.com banner at the top of the page, privoxy doesn't work by first downloading the ad from the server and then preventing you from seeing it. Instead it works by recognizing ads.osdn.com as an advertising site, and not even sending the HTTP GET request at all.
Now, it is true that privoxy has a second, independently functional ad-blocking mechanism that does rely on post-processing the ad after it is downloaded, but ads.osdn.com is well known enough that privoxy can (and does) already decide to eschew even the initial GET request based purely on the URL input.
"If the devil pays let him stay." :)
When's the last time you actually looked at an advertisement? My mind doesn't even notice them anymore, be they in magazines or online, much like the pink mountain in HHGTtG.
Hey wouldn't it be funny if /. or Linux Today posted the Microsoft ads, but allowed comments on them?
I once considered making a website that was just banner ads with comments on the banners. But a) bannerfarm.com was already taken, and b) I didn't think I could draw enough visitors to get enough comments to make it interesting. But I still like the idea.
whoever pays the piper calls the tune
I'm not dumping on you or the moral elite Phil,
We live in a free country. You can be as stuffy as you want to be. You can even get a gun and move to the hills if you have the resources and inclination to do so. That's the beauty of it really.
But when you run a web site, especially a community supported one that does not produce that does not produce a tangible product that can be sold, resold, or otherwise generate recurrent revenue, there are certain financial and mathematical realities that come into play.
When you're talking about money, real tangible money that you earn by providing valuable ad space on your tangible web sites to tangible sponsors, you are receiving something you find valuable in exchange for that space, which otherwise would not generate any revenue.
That is the key. If you do a cost benefit analysis on a site like this based on real world factors and common sense taken into account; you will find that the time spent developing and maintaining such a site is directly proportional to success and usefulness the site. No one, is going to run a web site like this or Linux Today full time, if it doesn't make financial sense to do so. We all need to make a living, unless of course we're too good to work.
Sure, it would be nice if people who had the resources chose to do a neat little out of the kindness of their hearts, and some do, I'm not knocking that either. So you can reign in that high horse a little.
Ideally, you want to refrain from offending your user base through pop up ads or spam, which aren't very useful to begin with considering that most of us block that anyway. So what does that leave you with?
Banner ads. Lots and lots of neat little banner ads, and those odd shaped rich media ads.
Now Microsoft may be a convicted felon. I'll concede that.
You may be interested to know that convicted felons are everywhere. There are literally millions of them. They usually work lower paying jobs or start businesses for themselves. Many of them live perfectly honest life styles after paying their debt to society. That's how it works.
There's no ethical way around that, nor should there be. And there's nothing ethically wrong or illegal about dealing with said person or entity if you choose to do so. And if they're not posting anything illegal, profane, or obscene on your web site, there really shouldn't be any ethical problem at all.
You need to lump Google and Microsoft together, because they are both asking you to do the very same thing in this case. They are asking for that tangible ad space that you need to make money with. It's that same space that they would like to use to sell their product on. It's not your fault that Microsoft's marketing department has a sense of irony, and can afford to throw money out the window on advertising that is not properly targeted at a useful client base.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
I've looked at linuxtoday every day for the
last 3 years. However that stopped 2 weeks
ago when I switched over to lxer
It's a little broader and much less noise.
Try both over 56K modem to really see what I mean.