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!
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.
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.
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
Perhaps this speaks more to the founder's views of Linux Today readers than anything else. I would think tuxors would be thrilled to be siphoning some funds from MS in this manner...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
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.
Why, post it on slashdot of course!
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.
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
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.
> Are Linux Today's readers too stupid to think for themselves?
I'm not really sure...what do you think?
Nope, because the similarity is only skin deep.
/. 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.
/. presentation of the Microsoft FUD because this isn't a Linux only site.
While
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
Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
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.
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*
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
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.
The advertiser's intent is actually not foiled at all.
/. 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.
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.
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
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