Linux Journal Goes — Surprise! — Digital

Mr_Perl writes "Linux Journal sent out an email to subscribers today announcing that they are going 100% digital. Subscribers signed on for a paper version of the journal, and now have been switched to an electronic version, apparently at the exact same subscription rate. No news yet on why they did it, and no sign of any offers to reimburse unused subscriptions for subscribers who are disappointed."

Comments

No thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

I like having hard copies of journals, books, and magazines. I don't want to read stuff on a fucking tablet of some sort.

People go on and on about how paper is fragile, but it's a lot more durable than the shitty Chinese-made devices that you have to use to read this "e-content". It gets worse when the publishers and vendors can arbitrarily delete material from your device, even after you've paid for it. Fuck that.

Why the fuck would I pay the same amount of money and not get something physical in return? No thanks.

Re:No thanks.

[wisnoskij]

And just on principal. The same price?
It is free to make and distribute, how can the digital version be the same price?

I don't like digital-only periodical subs

[mysidia]

If you let a paper subscription lapse, you don't have to return the books that you paid for under the subscription. It might be hard to find articles or search them, but you can keep a copy for as long as your copy survives! With reasonable treatment and storage conditions, that's upwards of 50 years.

If you have a digital version... they have the ability to pull the old issues at any time; e.g. 10 years from now they might decide to "archive old articles", so you can no longer find them. Also if you let your subscription lapse, when your web account is disabled, you lose access to ALL issues, even ones put out last month when you had a subscription to the periodical.

Also, if they go out of business and their website goes away, you lose access to all the articles you got under the subscription, and will have to pay more if you ever want to see them again, probably exorbitant fees to a database service or other archival service.

Loss of articles may hurt you if you remember/kept a tab of it, and want to use the info. either to help you, to show someone else, or for research/paper writing purposes

Re:I don't like digital-only periodical subs

[MacTO]

TFA notes that you can download a PDF version of the periodical, which means that you can keep the issues indefinitely.

So what it really comes down to is a business decision, and they think that they'd be better off in an all digital format. And I think that the only people who have the right to complain about that are the ones who are going to end up with their remaining print subscriptions transitioned to digital (because that sure ain't what they asked for).

Re:I don't like digital-only periodical subs

[uniquegeek]

Keep them indefinitely? You mean continually backing them up to different mediums and hoping the medium doesn't die, converting the pdf to something else if pdf comes to a point of dying, hoping for backwards compatibility of readers (and ideally testing many of the pdfs each time the version or software package changes)...

The effort involved with keeping magazines, in most instances, is carting the box around if you move. That, and keeping a pet bird away from it, if you happen to have one.

Re:No thanks.: Ditto

[Anonymous Coward]

When I sit down with a dead tree version of anything, I read it with as much full attention as I can muster. I don't know why, but I really have to make a conscious effort not to get distracted when reading online and I want to skim. And then there's the read an article, see what's on /., read part of an article, go to Fark, read some more ....etc ....

It's annoying but I find that my bad habits from online reading are moving over to the "real" world - I'm skimming more. I'm getting lazy with my reading habits. If the point isn't made in the first paragraph, I loose interest.

The whole World is becoming tl;dr

Re:From the Editor

[PCM2]

Ever since I discovered HTML, it’s been my preferred format for writing. Every word of mine that’s gone into Linux Journal, since I started in 1996, has been written and delivered in HTML.

Hahaha, totally typical. When I edited Randall Schwartz's column for Web Techniques magazine, he delivered his manuscripts in Perldoc format. (Note: This was neither cute nor geeky, it was just a pain in the ass.)

What’s different for me this time is that I’m not paying attention to my monthly 900-word limit (or less if images are involved). While a word limit does impose the discipline of brevity, the fact remains that brevity is not the only virtue of good writing. Yes, it’s a good one to have when your column appears on the last page of a print magazine. But when that magazine is no longer confined by the dimensions of printed pages, you’re free to go longer—or shorter, as the case may be.

It's my belief that this is precisely what is wrong with a lot of online-only writing. Nobody is bothering to edit it anymore. Writers are free to ramble on for as long as they choose, and most readers end up tuning out after the first page (or not reading TFA at all). When an editor pretends that an online brain-dump is actually better than a well-edited article, watch out: the publication is about to take a nosedive.

Linux Journal always has been a publi- cation for the Linux Community. Linux Journal will now be a publication by the Linux Community as well.

Oh, so no editing, and no actual writing either? Where's my checkbook?