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.
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.
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.
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
People still see ads in their web browsers? How 1997!
Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton
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?
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.
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?
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'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*
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
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
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.
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.
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'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.
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