Slashdot Mirror
The NYT's OS-Restrictive Video Policies
ro1 writes to mention a story on Linux.com about the NYT's confusing video policies. Essentially, if you're running Linux you can only see videos running on the front page of the site; videos elsewhere on the site require Windows or OSX. Roblimo has a video tour of the NYT site to explain the issue in detail. (Linux.com and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.)
*snort* Production? Using vnc2swf does not make you a producer
Seriously tho' - roblimo's correct. It's an utterly absurd situation. A linux user should not have to change their UA string (illegal in some jurisdictions) just to watch videos. Why the hell isn't the NYT checking flash versions rather than OS anyway?
Nicely done anyway - and using flash a little flash presentation is a good way to get your point across to the non-techies around (I imagine even a senior editor at the NYT could understand the problem after watching that video).
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Well considering slashdot's attitude towards NYT concerning their registration policy.* Why should we concern ourselves with their video policies?
*BugMeNot for example.
Why dont they just have a "do you see this video page" where you can still continue if you do see the video.
For everyone using firefox, here's a nice little extension to get past this stuff. You can also set it as a googlebot and get all their articles for free.
How does any client side bug set their policy. Their policy clearly leaves out Linux users, and I am refering to their system requirements page. Also, how would they go about detecting a bug with the clients Linux/Flash player in the first place. This seems like an if-else where Linux falls into the else.
The only real question is if this was purposely done or not. I myself have seen my fair share of website that simply do not combinations of Linux and non-IE browsers for no obvious technical reason.
In the NY Times defense however, it's their site, they can do what they want, provided they give their Linux using subscribers a refund on their subscription fee.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
That is crazy, especially that it would matter to the NYT. Companies that force you to see their content in only a certain way irk me, especially sites that are specifically designed to keep you from using Firefox. I just decide if they're going to have a restrictive policy, I can just not view their website.
...contains scripts that take advantage of unpatched exploits in Windows and Mac OS X that would send to NYT copies of all the gossips you send thru the internet. So far, there is little progress on the native Linux version. If you're an avid programmer of FOSS and would like to know what gossips you're girlfrie... errr I mean your CEO are spreading about you contact as at careers@nyt.com
I'm 'Needless Paranioa' and I aprove of this message.
I'm sorry, but what? All I can see is that their current online video authoring package isn't very good, and they don't want to have people who's OS doesn't support it thinking that there's a bug with their site.
Ok, it's not a good plan to not have it working in linux, but lets be honest, how many of the people working at nyt have anything but windows at their desk? I'm guessing none, with possibly a few macs about the place.
For that matter, how many users will be on linux? Not many I'll wager. Sad, but almost certainly true. Therefore this problem will effect only a very small minority of their readers.
The chances are that most people here use linux (me included). However, we are still in the minority, and we don't have persuasive reps loaded with free pens going round selling authoring packages and other web software to newspapers.
While that's the case, linux will get the short straw.
Apparently this is NYT's way of saying that if you're smart enough to be using Linux, and diligent enough to go beyond the front page, then New York Times isn't meant for you! It could be their strategy to cater to only the dumber sections of the poulace, perhaps?
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
As a web developer I'd like to say that it would take more effort to restrict browsers/operating systems than to accomodate for them.
Seems as though they have their priorities a little backwards.
Stupid f**king people these days.
If you dont like their product/service dont buy/use it.
Shop elsewhere.
I suggest all Linux users boycott the NY Times, they're sure to be bankrupt in weeks! That'll show em.
I can't make it clear enough, if you dont like it go somewhere else.
It's THEIR product/service, THEY can do as they please with it.
If you had an orange squeezer and where in my store and buying oranges and you discover they dont fit your squeezer, you dont come back to me with a song and wardance about them not fitting, you either buy a bigger squeezer or buy smaller oranges.
If you dont like my product, shop elsewhere.
IT'S THAT SIMPLE!
Apparently changing the UA string doesn't make a difference.. surely this would suggest to you a bug with the implementation of videos/flash etc under Linux
The point is that videos from the front page do work fine under Linux. So there is no reason to prevent other videos from working.
I assume there is some way to spoof the OS response in FireFox to return a Windows response regardless of the actual operating system. Has anyone tried this? I haven't used the NY Times video service, but maybe they use a different technology for the video page (i.e. not macromedia) than the front page. Although it sounds like a dumb idea, perhaps it has DRM, or uses a different technology that requires Windows Media Player.
In either case, it is simply be poor website design to use browers/OS detection to redirect to an "error" page. If there is an incompatibility, let it be shown as best it can instead of denying access. Or even better, use open standards to prevent the problem in the first place. Preventing paying customers from accessing their site reflects poorly on the NY Times technical and web development staff.
No, changing the useragent string DOES work! This is plain and simple discrimination against anyone using software that isn't from Microsoft/Apple.
I recommend letting the NYTimes know you're not happy about them not supporting Linux (and preferably Ogg Vorbis/Theora) in a language that everyone can understand...
president@nytimes.com; publisher@nytimes.com; public@nytimes.com; feedback@nytimes.com; clarosa@nytimes.com; schools@nytimes.com; wedinfo@nytimes.com; society@nytimes.com; nytnews@nytimes.com; executive-editor@nytimes.com; managing-editor@nytimes.com; news-tips@nytimes.com; the-arts@nytimes.com; bizday@nytimes.com; foreign@nytimes.com; metro@nytimes.com; national@nytimes.com; sports@nytimes.com; washington@nytimes.com; editorial@nytimes.com; oped@nytimes.com; circulation@nytimes.com
I just set my User Agent in Firefox 1.5.0.5/Ubuntu Linux 6.06 to Opera 8.0/Win 2000, after whitelisting the site with flashblock, the video played perfectly in the Videos section, and I wasn't shooed away by any browser detection.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
No investment is required, the videos play on linux, just switch off browser detection or whitelist linux.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
If they support Unix, then they'd get people who had a bad or esoteric configuration whining "But my computer can't play this video!". Better safe than sorry.
p for more info) use.
There's just no real reason for them to spend time investing in an OS that has bad netvideo support (no Flash 8+) that roughly 1 in 250 people (see http://www.currybet.net/articles/user_agents/2.ph
I make websites and stuff. Buy one.
Not to mention that he runs Windows XP on his laptop.
The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.
PrefBar has one too, but I think its UA list is outdated. Does anyone have a full list of UA so I can change my list?
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
lately i seen a few flash videos lock up firefox on Linux and cause the CPU to run @ 100%. i dont know if it is just a bug or if somebody is trying to intentionally cause a buffer overflow in order to do something else - insert arbitrary code?, gain root access? who knows, anyhow, flash-7 (the current one) should be disabled by default with NoScript unless you are at a known and trusted site.
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
But I'm not sure what's more annoying. How NYT cut out Linux users, or that video Linux.com shot which basically went as:
... ...
we can see videos on the front page blah blah blah blah blah
now we go in the video section *rants*
now we go to the front page: we can watch videos blah blah blah
now we go in the video section *rants*
but we go on the front page: we can watch videos blah blah blah
now we go in the columnist's video section *rants*
repeat for more fun.
or you could've just took that smug toned video of linux.com and just asked NYT nicely to please fix their lame code.
That is definately wrong. If I change the User Agent string, it solves this ridicoulus problem. However, you seem to haven't even seen the video or tried to access the videos under Linux. The Situation is totally clear. Btw, do you really know, what a User Agent string is?
it's their site, they can do what they want
I'm not convinced that's the case. If I own a carpark, should I be allowed to turn away people based on what car they drive? If I own a hotel, should I be allowed to turn away people based on their religion? I don't think so.
The NYT website is a website being made available to the general public. Is there a reason why they should be allowed to discriminate against certain people based on something irrelevant?
I'm not convinced that's the case. If I own a carpark, should I be allowed to turn away people based on what car they drive?
Why not? If you think you can make more money by only letting people driving Lexus, Beamers, and Mercedes in and charging $10/hr since you keep the riff-raff out, I'd say go for it.
If I own a hotel, should I be allowed to turn away people based on their religion? I don't think so.
You *should* be allowed to. That you're not is just one more example of a bad law.
The NYT website is a website being made available to the general public. Is there a reason why they should be allowed to discriminate against certain people based on something irrelevant?
Because they don't want you there seems like a perfectly valid reason to me.
If I own a carpark, should I be allowed to turn away people based on what car they drive? If I own a hotel, should I be allowed to turn away people based on their religion?
Sure, if the car's weight can cause damage to your park. (For instance, motorcycle kickstands can leave dents in tar parking lots on hot summer days.) Also, some vehicles are so wide as to make it difficult to use parking spaces adjacent to them, which means they're using more than their alloted one space. And then, of course, there's height clearance issues.
As for hotels and religion, why not? If the swingers' club and the church group spend their time heckling each other, you might be faced with demands for refunds. If the two groups break out into a brawl, you'd have failed in your responsibilities to your customers' health.
As for how this applies to NYT videos and Linux, perhaps they're worried about content-copying servers and unauthorized news aggregating websites. Last I checked, it was cheaper (and thus more profitable) to script those things with a few simple Linux tools than to buy Windows software that does it for you.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
If I own a carpark, should I be allowed to turn away people based on what car they drive?
Yes. You have the right to run your business however you want, given that:
If I own a hotel, should I be allowed to turn away people based on their religion?
Generally, no. There's areas you aren't allowed to discriminate, and religion is one of them. There's exceptions, of course - the boy scouts at least used to require faith in a monotheistic religion, for example - but it's best to stay away from it unless you want your ass sued.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
It's called full disclosure, and it's pretty standard when dealing with a "reputable" journalism source.
It is very aggravating to try to watch some flash video and only see parts of it because whomever created it did so using Flash player 8 or 9. Flash player 8 has been out for at least a year now, and Flash 9 has subsequently been released for windows and osx. Why no new Linux Flash player?
Now, after visiting this site with and without the "Switch User Agent" and being blocked when it was set to Firefox and allowed when set to IE6, I too can see that there seems to be no technical reason for blocking Linux users. For those who say that some users odd configuration may cause them not to be able to view some of the videos, I don't understand why that would be the case as Flash should stand on its own for its content. There may be some lag involved in the worst cases, but I have never come across a Flash 7 video that hasn't worked very well (except the occasional lag in large flash files). I have also viewed Flash videos on several different Linux boxes, including an older P3, all with no troubles.
On a semi-related note (being about Linux compatability for pay services)- I subscribe to Comcast Cable and Internet, we don't have a choice in the location I'm in for cable tv, and recently needed to set up my internet connection. They give you the choice of having their guy do it for $99 or do it yourself for $9. Now, of course, I chose the diy option not only becuase I didn't want to pay the money, but also because I don't want sombody that I don't know getting on my computer. However, Comcast does not support Linux (I run Suse 10). I had to call them up and spend an hour on the phone with them so that they would add the MAC address of my cable modem into their system. Why not just make a browser-based setup that everybody can access, instead of this silly proprietary thing?
Anyways, my point is that it is absolutly rediculous that these situations occur (situations in which there it would take little to no effort to support Linux and that is not done). I mean last I knew, Linux and OSX had a similarly sized market share, so why support one and not the other. I am not willing to give up 15GB+ to install windows, even in a VM (which doesn't help hardware issues), I would rather be using my disk space for something else. Also, I just wanted to mention to those who will surely post that I should be making sure that I check to see if it's Linux compatable before I buy, and I do. The problem is that in certain situations, there is not that luxury of taking your buisiness elsewhere for a comparable product (ie. my cable).
IMHO, if a company is going to be the only choice for some product or service, they really need to support everybody. The argument that "we don't have a linux/unix guy shouldn't fly. They are a service in which the consumer cannot chose an alternative, which means that they are rakin' in the cash, they should be able to scrounge up $50K/yr to get a linux guy if they don't already have one. I'm sick of being in a situation where I am told 'you have to use this service if you want internet,' then the service provider says, 'you have to use this proprietary system if you don't want to us pay $100 to set it up.'
Agreed 100%. It's funny how people advocating such "let's not allow them to do X" attitude have some qualms applying the same concept to themselves. "Hey can I enter your house?" "No, who are you anyway?" "OMGZ discrimination!!!111oneone!"
Global warming is a cube.
I had a similar experience with a bank some years ago. When I came in to explain to my personal banking unit that my browser kept crashing when I tried to access their online offerings, she immediately said, "You're using an Apple PC, right?"
"Yes," I admit quietly, just in case some hicks are listening and might want to drag me behind their pick-up truck or otherwise hassle me for my alternative lifestyle choice.
"The thing is," the personal banking unit explained, "the Apple computers have such a small share of the market that it costs too much for us to develop a secure website in parallel."
"That's too bad," I sigh.
"Yeah," she agrees, "it seems like every third person who wants to do online banking has an Apple."
I pause and scratch my head. "I thought you said there weren't enough of us to make it worth your while."
"Well yeah," she nods, "but I think it must be easier to get on the Internet with Apple or something, because it seems like almost everybody who's comfortable doing online banking wants to use an Apple for it."
"So doesn't that mean there's a demand for a Mac-compatible service?"
"Well no," she shakes her head, "you see Apple has less than a billionth of percent of marketshare. So...you know -- that's that. Sorry!"
So, to make a long story short, that's when I entered a special Scientology-run programme designed to cure me using non-psychiatric means of my penchant for using the wrong computer. And I feel much better now.
These stories are free but worth money.
The answer is: They are assholes, idiots, lazy, in bed with Microsoft, or some combination thereof.
Personally I get left out of video sites all the time because I choose to use an older version of Windows (because I can). These sites will kindly tell me that they only "support" running on a PC with Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Yet sites like Google Video work perfectly for me.
What really blows my mind are old sites that check your UA to make sure you are running "Netscape", although spoofing the UA in Firefox usually lets it work fine.
I follow the Firefox bad site reporter data at http://reporter.mozilla.org/app/ and it boggles my mind how many sites are like this.
Mozilla could be programmed to send http requests that look like those of a Windows machine. It's just a matter of changing the HTTP request and certain Javascript constants.
Incidentally, 9/11 was perpetrated mostly by the US government: http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/911.html
Consider yourself lucky that you learned this while signing up for the account. Simply send them a letter (ON PAPER) explaining why you walked away from their service, then walk away. Wachovia (and SouthTrust before they got bought out) works just fine with my Ubuntu / Firefox setup. I'm sure lots of other banks do too.
One simple rule for its versus it's
The chances are that most people here use linux
Actually I believe that most slashdotters use Windows. A couple of weeks ago I posted a comment that contained a URL to my home computer (it was deep down inside an obscure thread about the durability of Egyptian pyramids, so I didn't get slashdotted). The log showed that most of the hits from /.ers were using Firefox, as you'd expect, but more than half of all hits used some flavor of Windows.
The Boy Scouts are not a commercial entity. That's why they can "get away" with it.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Soo, anyone wanna start a petition, or something like that?
as an avid bbc website user I rather like realmedia. All their content (well, almost all), is in the realmedia format. I think there are a few options for wmv, and they do have mp3 podcasts/downlaods
Realmedia works in linux and windows, with no problems at all. I don't get the hatred of it at all.
Ok, there was a time when Real were awful, and their programs were intrusive and horrible. I bought realjukebox once, which I rather liked, and that freed me from advert land, but they renaged on their contract/changed it, so I never got the updates I was meant to have. They changed to RealOne a few months after I bought realjukebox and demanded payment all over again, the bastards. That was quite a few years ago now. Sooner or later you have to move on.
My early Real experience doesn't detract from the fact that these days their format is probably the best, and the easiest to use on multiple platforms.
No, changing the useragent string DOES work! This is plain and simple discrimination against anyone using software that isn't from Microsoft/Apple.
Whereas using Ogg would be discriminating against the majority of people that have no idea what an Ogg is, let alone a Vorbis or a Theora, or how to play it. It's not nice, but the NYT have to make some tradeoffs when implementing video. I'd reckon that giving the tiny percentage of users using Linux and its horribly horribly broken Flash plugin the finger is worth it to them if it lets things work for the other 99% of people.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
Seems to be standard here, too.
-1: Off-topic :)
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
If you don't like their policy, don't work around it. Let them know their policy stinks and should be corrected.
I personally hate the NYTimes. I don't want to register and log in to see a new web page, so I don't go there. They don't get my eyeballs for their ads, and google news almost always has the same story somewhere else.
They have a ton of email addresses listed at:
http://nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoserv
Some include:
publisher@nytimes.com
managing-editor@nytimes.com
circulation@nytimes.com
Be nice if you write them, explain nicely why you hate them and their policies.
It is probably the same mentality at the NYT that many streamers have. The NYT has its free stuff and it has it subscription stuff. I suspect they think they are being shrewd by only allowing open media on the "free" front page.
But is it shrewd? A radio station wouldn't make it _hard_ to tune in their broadcast because that would be counterproductive to the value of their station for ad revenue, right?
Yet internet streamers often act like every copyrighted word from their announcers is archive gold to be sold and resold for decades and they would be insane to allow access to a program like mplayer where the savvy user knows how to save their invaluable content. Well, I've got a shock for them. What they often stream is no more valuable than what is being broadcast on the radio or TV and people are no more likely to save every byte than people are to tape radio or TV all day. And, sadly, it may be that if ad revenue can't pay for stream, perhaps stream isn't a useful medium?
Now that I've got my MythTV setup running and MythStream compiled in, I can see that proprietary embedded streaming isn't going to cut it for me. EVEN IF they accommodate something like linux RealPlayer, in the living room I'm going to be listening to stations where I can add a static URL to my MythStream page and click on it with a remote.
I'm more likely to browse slashdot at work (Firefox / Win32) because it's more or less work-safe. At home I'll visit other sites (Firefox / Ubuntu Dapper k7), mainly because slashdot seemingly stops updating after a certain time each day.
The big issue here is that it DOES work in Linux; they forcibly prevent it from being viewed. The GP's talk about offering .ogg streams/downloads as well is a completely different topic.
resident@nytimes.com; publisher@nytimes.com; public@nytimes.com; feedback@nytimes.com; clarosa@nytimes.com; schools@nytimes.com; wedinfo@nytimes.com; society@nytimes.com; nytnews@nytimes.com; executive-editor@nytimes.com; managing-editor@nytimes.com; news-tips@nytimes.com; the-arts@nytimes.com; bizday@nytimes.com; foreign@nytimes.com; metro@nytimes.com; national@nytimes.com; sports@nytimes.com; washington@nytimes.com; editorial@nytimes.com; oped@nytimes.com; circulation@nytimes.com
Uh, HUH. Because spamming random people at the NYT is going to get you even one quantum more attention than MAKE UR LOVER LONGER FAST spams. The replier in TFA had it right: Rob (not just some random joe with random sign-in data or some Linux fanboy who doesn't even go to the site) should send SNAIL MAIL to some of these people about his problem, and give them an opportunity to respond to his video thingy.
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
That's true. No beef with that point, using a UA mask to hide stuff for no real reason is very wanky.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
I can't count the number of times I have gone to a site on my Mac & Linux boxen and it gave me some windows garbage error. That it 'only' works under that ONE platform. Forget the other 5,000 platforms out there that share universal protocols and standards. It only works on that ONE platform, (a closed, and unfree one at that) because some idiot decided to code the site to work with THAT ONE PLATFORM, and not follow standards. So basicly what those sites are telling you is. "In order to use this site, you must go buy a $300-$400 i386 architecture machine, and it MUST have this OS installed on it."
Someone decided to stick proprietary plugins and codecs into a site, like "Active X" or some other off the wall language. Why not Python, or Perl? I believe these two run on almost EVERY platform out there. HP started loading their cheap-o, spyware filled PCs with Python about 3 years ago.
I believe modern day people that call themselves 'admins' or 'webmasters' are just people that came out of collage that don't even have a clue what they are doing, and pick up some 'off the shelf' 'marketed to them' windows software that another idiot told them to try.
This is why I have decided to allow ALL browsers into my site, BUT Internet Explorer. IE is the ONLY browser not allowed to go to our company site, as well as my personal sites. After looking at the web logs a few times over the past few months, it seems that an average of %74 or so of IE users go download Firefox after they visit the error message.
When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. - Jefferson
If there is a subscription option for the NYT site, then it makes sense that there would be some minimal system requirements. I would think that they do this so as to avoid having to refund money when people can't play video or see content. So now they do a short circuit and decide for you that the video won't play. In some weird way, it is understandable.
That said, does it make sense that they do the check in one place but not the other? I mean, why do what a lot of other people do and certify against a specific flavor of Linux.
Should roblimo stop bellyaching and use a Mac? probably.
Are Mac and Linus users totally immune from viruses and spyware? 100%, now and forever.
Conclusion : complain to the NYT.
Bean crock.
Lee DeForest and William Shockley, aren't my favorite guys.
Lee DeForest created the triode, for which he deserves credit. However as an inventor, he was a fiddler and a bit of a hack. His strength was in using the patent system and legal system to crush his competitors.
DeForest filed a patent that infringed on Armstrong's superheterodyne receiver patent, which made high quality long distance audio transmission possible. The courts, unable to understand the engineering involved, were unable to render a definitive verdict protecting Armstrong's rights. Litigating this brought Armstrong to the brink of financial ruin, with the coup de grace administered by DeForest's successors at RCA. Armstrong had invented FM transmission, and as FM broadcasting was clearly superior to AM, RCA successfully lobbied to have the FM broadcasting band moved, destroying Armstrong's growing radio business. They then claimed invention of FM, which brought Armstrong to financial ruin and suicide. Later Armstrong's claim to priority in the superhet receiver and FM were vindicated.
Shockley, on the other hand was a genius. He just had ugly and pseudoscientific ideas about racial hygeine. Ironically, this obsession with eugenics came from his visits to India, from which he concluded that the high birth rate in this technologically backward country would swamp the world with low grade intellects.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Yes. I most certainly believe that you have that right.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
0% of NY Times video visitors are Linux users. The obvious inference to be drawn is that Linux users don't care about current events probably. That, or maybe Linux was just a passing fad... etc.
Free tinfoil: the OS check is so bizarre and unnecessary that I think it should be looked into. Did any money change hands to make this happen?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Btw, do you really know, what a User Agent string is?
It is the thing that makes the bean counters know that 99.99999 % of users are using IE.
I had a flame... but she had a fire.
> If I own a hotel, should I be allowed to turn away people based on their religion? I don't think so.
You *should* be allowed to. That you're not is just one more example of a bad law.
In fact, we should make people wear armbands so we can tell what religion they belong to so we know who to turn away....wait, does that sound like a bad idea to anyone else?
"You *should* be allowed to. That you're not is just one more example of a bad law."
Lucky for some folks such isn't allowed in some places. Could you imagine a grocery store that wouldn't sell you food on account of being [insert religion, color, creed, sexuality, political affiliation, degree of being an asshole]?
The only real question is if this was purposely done or not. I myself have seen my fair share of website that simply do not combinations of Linux and non-IE browsers for no obvious technical reason.
Here's the obvious technial reason: They don't think its worth the investment to have the site support Linux. You can't just assume it will work in Linux, you actually have to QA it. Increasing the number of platforms on which you have to QA increases your cost. They don't think the cost will be less than the benefit. Its probably on purpose, and its for good reason... cost of testing.
I'm not convinced that's the case. If I own a carpark, should I be allowed to turn away people based on what car they drive? If I own a hotel, should I be allowed to turn away people based on their religion? I don't think so.
Why not?
The NYT website is a website being made available to the general public. Is there a reason why they should be allowed to discriminate against certain people based on something irrelevant?
Its not available to the general public; the features they offer are available only to those that meet the requirements they set forth. Its not irrelevent; if they want to list that Linux based browsers will work with their site, they actually have to test to make sure it does, which costs money.
I think it's you that misunderstand. Discrimination merely means separating something from something else based on predetermined criteria. If you allow Linux users in and not Windows users, then you are discriminating on the basis of operating system. If you allow white people in and not black people, you are discriminating on the basis of skin color. One of those things is illegal, the other is not. This doesn't even get into the use of the word as an adjective instead of a verb (e.g., to be a discriminating connoisseur of operating systems, perhaps?).
The use of the word 'discrimination' doesn't necessarily imply anything racial, nor does it necessarily even imply anything wrong. Though it's true that the world carries negative connotations in many people's minds, that doesn't mean the use of the word is limited; its use is simply a rhetorical trick (and an unsubtle one at that).
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
There is a question which should be presented before jumping on the "NYT is evil!" bandwagon:
Are they sniffing the agent and explicitly "blocking" Linux users, or are they merely relying on sniffing to "ensure" compatibility based on archaic knowledge, and simply not "validating" Linux compatibility?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
If the swingers' club and the church group spend their time heckling each other, you might be faced with demands for refunds. If the two groups break out into a brawl, you'd have failed in your responsibilities to your customers' health That gave me a chuckle, I once had the displeasure of protecting a KKK rally from anti-Klan protesters and now I not sure if I actually detest one group more than the other or equally now.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
It can't cost that much. Come on now.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
The point of TFA is that their site works fine on Linux. They don't have to include Linux in their list of supported systems (requirements) if they don't want to "support" it. "If you are having trouble, please be sure to use a supported browser & media player..."
But what NYT has done here is to make sure that you are having trouble if you use Linux.
It's hard to come up with an analogy here, but what the hell I'll try: A movie theater exhibits 3-D films, and there's a station outside to buy the "approved" 3-D glasses. Now a penguin walks up with some DIY glasses he's been experimenting with. He buys a ticket and goes through the line to the theater door.
And they won't let him in
"Sorry, sir, we don't support those glasses."
"I don't want you to support my glasses; just let me in."
"Sorry, you'll have to go buy glasses from the station outside"
Would you get a little suspicious? Would you wonder how the guy running that station got such a gig?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Good idea! Useful information about how to email the NYTimes, too! I'd recommend BBCing any email feedback if it is sent to more than one of those NYTimes addresses, lest it be detected as a mass mailing and auto-ignored. Maybe one of the drones who works there will notice that tech savvy people tend to avoid IE and very few people use Macs much.
Maybe the reason the NYTimes is losing its subscriber base is that their (former) customers with a clue know more about today's tech gear than the NYTimes senior management, including the technology editor... (I have a very low opinion of the NYTimes..."all the pablum the brain-dead will pay for" sums it up nicely.) I rarely bother clicking on links to the NYTimes since the news is usually (but not always) covered better elsewhere. Check out stories linked to on Google News to see what I mean.
FWIW, I run Ubuntu Linux (I have no intention of wasting my money on Vista or other buggy bloateware such as M$ Office -- OpenOffice works fine for me) and WinXP Pro (x64 Edition, too). Linux is getting better. Winblows is going downhill. MacOS isn't even in the running as there is nothing I want to do that justifies buying overpriced products from Apple. Increasingly, I favor FOSS and avoid expensive proprietary crap.
Hmmm. Now that I think about it, there is nothing in the NYTimes that justifies buying more than a handful of printed issues in any given year -- anything really newsworthy is covered extensively elsewhere, although the NYTimes does have a dwindling reputation for being a news leader (e.g., other news media tend to jump on whatever is covered in the NYTimes.) When it will dawn on the major media outlets that good, non-proprietary media players are increasingly available and popular? Then again, Apple makes most of its profits these days from Ipodiots... I guess it is never wise to underestimate the stupidity of the average human being. The NYTimes editorials are what used to cause me to buy the occasional issue, but now I can always find the best ones quoted in full online. GIYF.
I wonder if this story will be well covered in the NYTimes? It would be fun to see it picked up by FOX News... *snicker*
"You're young, you're drunk, you're in bed, you have knives; shit happens." -- Angelina Jolie
You're a troll.
There are plenty of ways to recognize someone's religion without the Nazi reference. Maybe he wakes me up every sunday morning by knocking on my door trying to sell me his bedtime story. Maybe he's screaming at the other customers that they're going to hell. Maybe he's got a bumper sticker on his car that says "If Jesus is your copilot, you're in the wrong seat."
Could you imagine a grocery store that wouldn't sell you food on account of being [insert religion, color, creed, sexuality, political affiliation, degree of being an asshole]?
Easily. And, to follow your most likely train of thought, if EVERY grocery store in an area were to do this, it just might send the message that "We don't like [insert religion, color, sexuality, political affiliation, asshole quotient]s here. Get your head out of your ass, get out of town, grow your own food, or starve."
I still fail to see any sort of problem with this arrangement.
Oh please. You've got no clue, you've obviously never worked in web development. To do PROPER testing, you need to identify which version of the OS (In this case, its not even just Linux 2.2.6, its RH 9, Mandriva 2007, Ubantutu (whatever), Debian, Slack, and a host of others). Then you have to try various browser combinations on each; Konq, Mozilla, Netscape, FF. Then you have to try various versions, FF 1.0, FF 1.5.0, FF 1.5.1.
It takes time to test, which isn't free, and if issues are found you have to report back to some manager that must decide if its severe enough to warrant fixing, and if it is, take the time to not only fix it in a specific browser but make sure that fix doesn't break all the other browsers.
And before you respond with "they don't need to test all those" then how can you say for certain that the browser is supported? The answer is you can't.
Ok, so my gaming/music production rig still runs XP - that doesn't surprise me. Eventually more companies will realize that they can increase their reach just by putting out a linux port. Maybe it's only the geek crowd now, but if we keep working on it more people will come to Linux as it improves. Also, remember who does the support for Linux: end users! So, tell me about the investment costs for Linux support again?
Basically your argument is:"Linux sucks for desktop users right now, so it's not worth the effort to make it so." Unfortunately, your basic premise is flawed (Linux (or at least Ubuntu) is mostly desktop-ready) - and your solution (don't bother working on it) is not really a solution.
Apparently common sense doesn't use logic, people.
I use friend/foe to signal strong [dis]agreement instead of mod points. What else are f/f good for?