Opportunity cost is an interestng way to consider the problem. I'd want to factor in the financial cost of vendor lock-in and a forced upgrade cycle.
Then there's the cost in terms of usability from worms, virii and and associated hacks. There's the opportunity cost of being denied the chance to learn a bit about my system.
But I don't suppose there's such a thing as a typical set of criteria when deciding which software is best. That makes it a little difficult to dismiss out-of-hand someone's choice as an "irrational bias".
It doesn't sound like you've had a particularly happy experience of linux, but then It doesn't sound like you've had a very typical one either. Of course, some laptop vendors are still a bit linux hostile, but my tosh is fully functional without causing me any real dificulties.
I had more dificulty when internet explorer got subverted on my old windows machine. To fix that I ended up having to re-install the entire OS. Or the system restore disc that didn't include all the drivers. Then there was one from a different vendor that chose to reformat the hard drive. Those incidents cost me quite a few nights when I could have been out partying with my mates. I've lost more time to proprietary software than I ever have to free software.
Really, this all sounds like a grass roots spin on the old Total Cost of Ownership argument. I didn't buy into that for the workplace, and I don't think I believe it in the home either. Sorry.
Does the test setup matter? Apparently Veritest thought so. They spent some time tweaking both machines. It seems like the tweaks sped up windows and slowed down linux.
I have to applaud the way you take a positive stance and look at how apache can be improved. I expect efforts in that direction form an ongoing part of apache development, but the positive attitude is appreciated. It's just a bit sad that your post reads as an endorsemnt of a blatant piece of paid-for propaganda
The best tool for the job? Well sometimes, maybe. Perhaps. But look - a spanner is a tool, right? Well in the case of MS we're talking about spanners that we can't buy but only licence. Spanners that MS can take back from us any time, despite the fact we paid good money. We're talking spanners that have been designed to stop working if we move to a house with a bigger garage.
A lot of people would say "if you don't like that, don't use MS spanners". Fine. Done deal!:)
Just a little way down the metaphorical road, there's a shop that sells spanners at a fraction of the price that MS does. They may not be as pretty, and for some jobs they aren't quite as exact - but they've been getting better for years and the difference is scarcely noticeable these days. And if you can do without the fancy packaging, you can go online and get that same tool free..
And it's then yours to use legally, wherever and however you wish - so long as you don't try and claim you designed it.
So the question is: by what criteria do you evaluate best? None free software, security holes, forced upgrades... with many people these things carry a hefty negative.
Oh My God. Can't you spot a joke when you read one?
I'm having dificulty deciding in this case. I'm
fairly certain I said that up front. It is funny. I did laugh. That does not mean that the reg is not at the same time deadly serious.
do you think that any publisher as vitriolic as The Register would really really sell their soul so cheaply?
This is a trick question, right? The tariff gag works just because of El Reg's posture of postmodern amorality. The question is whether (and to what extent) that stance is a gag, and to what extent it is in earnest.
Or that they would leave themselves that open to possible libel action by writing "any story you like"?
I think we can rely upon them to explain the small print before anyone sign anything binding. And that they're not fools enough to leave themselves open in that way. Advertising often fails to mention all the terms and conditons that may apply.
What I want to know is this: How highly does the register value its journalistic integrity? If highly, then why print a tariff at all, since it can be used to call any article into question. On the other hand, if they place little value on the that integrity, then why would they not "sell their soul" for 15k? I mean it's not like it's a one off deal -- they get to sell out again and again at 15 grand a time.
I find your faith in the Reg touching. But on this issue, I think I shall have to remain agnostic.
The reg publishes a tariff. A quick article casting aspersions upon PJ and Groklaw would only cost SCO 15k - cheap compared to the dosh they've blown on lawyers fees lately.
Of course, this being el Reg, I'm never entirely sure whether or not to take said tariff with a pinch of salt. Overall, I think I'm tending toward not.
It doesn't diminish my my affection for the rag, I just don't take them too seriously when they pull sudden a volte-face in favour of someone with deep pockets.
DS9 had some damn fine material. Voyager was a waste of time, and I quickly found I didn't care if I missed Enterprise, but DS9 had its good points, I think that's undeniable.
Certainly DS9 dealt reasonably well with the consequences of military action. On the other hand, I don't think I could dismiss the less utopian nature of DS9 (and from what I've seen of it, Enterprise) as being quite so unimportant.
For me at least, Roddenberry's utopian future was Star Trek. Here was a future where we didn't nuke ourselves back to the stone age but made it into space. Here was a future society where the problems had been solved. Here was a world where you could leave exploration to the military, safe in the knowledge that they'd do it right. It was a message of hope for the future.
To me, that was Star Trek. ST:TNG showed that the formula could be updated and still work. DS9 - well, I can commend DS9 for trying something different, and it had a lot of good ideas, but I think it lost its way trying to compete with Bab5.
There are a lot of other reasons why I stopped watching trek: The particle of the week club and the recycled scripts from other genres which gave us a holodeck/timetravel story every three weeks or so to name but two. But more than anything, I think the change in tone is when it stopped being trek for me.
In Roddenberry's trek, a war such as that in DS9 need never have happened. In TOS war was always the illogical solution; the presumption always that a better solution existed. In Berman's Trek, the assumption (of the series if not of the characters) seems reversed; that there will always come a time when, with all the goodwill in the world, violence is unavoidable.
It had a number of cold war themed episodes, true. On the other hand, most of those focussed on the futility of conflict and the possiblities if we could just transcend such shallow regional squabbles. Checkov's presence on the bridge said it all in some ways.
Look at a classic trek cold war episode and the chances are you'll find a tale of two oncew great cultures who near-anhiliated one another; or else a conflict, deadly to both sides, that can only be resolved by settingv aside their differences and declaring peace.
Recent Trek, from what I've seen of it, tends to be full of alien infiltrators, and shadowy, powerful enemies who can only be defeated by immense violence and all out war, because the threat they pose the federation is so grave, there is no other choice.
In classic trek there was always a choice. Sometimes it took a hyper-powerful alien race to make Kirk see it, but it was always there.
I think I'd go for option A: More pitchforks for apple. Unfair business pratices are unfair, regardless of who perpetrates them.
On the other hand, I do have a degree of sympathy for the anti-microsoft mob. It's not that Apple are necesarily any better; it's more that MS, its influence being that much more pervasive, has had many, many more opportunities to annoy them. There's a lot of hatred for MS which Apple would be hard pressed to match given its current market share. Given that, people tend to react more strongly when Microsoft starts acting like Dick Dastardly - they've been here before and before and before and they've long since had enough. When Apple does it, they've got enough good will stored up that people tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.
So I'll make no apologies for Apple, but I think "double standard" and "childish" are maybe a bit harsh.
Look, I only really own one chess set. I may have owned a few over the years, but it's not like some mad marketroid is pressuring me to buy a new one every quarter - "this time with different colours".
And if I do get a chess board, I know it's going to be Chess that I get to play on it. Not draughts with chessmen symbols embossed on the counters. And I don't need to worry about the Rook piece being held back to help sell the forthcoming expansion pack:
"Black Queen's Revenge"
I'm not denying that there is innvoation in the industry. It's just that there's a lot of virulently marketed tripe which makes it hard to find the good new games. At £30 a pop, I'm loathe to take the gamble any more.
Now factor in the way the big boys are pushing console based gaming, so they can control the channel and further stifle crativity. I don't think gaming is going to die. I do think however that it's a bubble, and a bubble that is due to burst.
So are you saying that Apple's pettiness makes Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly less wrong, or just that we should be more stridently condemnatory of Apple?
If you think it'd help, I could turn on caps lock and swear for a bit...
I wonder if Secure Startup will be able to distiguish a linux installation from a hard drive "compromise".
I would be sad if there was such a bug. Imagine how enthusiastically MS would leap into action to get it fixed.
We're not in the web advertising business anymore. We're not in the SEO business, ei
Let me spell it out for you. My company *used* to do web advertising. We never used popups. We never installed malware. We just wanted people to accept a cookie so we could gather data.
Thank you for that. It's so much easier to appreciate your points with
a little bit of context.
I also agree that this is getting tedious, so I'll try and be brief.
I applaud your moral stance, I acknowledge your propriety in your business
methods. I even sympathise over the failure of your advertising business, since
lord knows the world could use more ethical advertisers.
We've had to retarget our entire company focus, because you can't succeed in those businesses *honestly* anymore.
[
My initial comment that you took such exception to, was that the ad industry
is not renowned for its strong ethical stance. Here you are echoing that
sentiment. After all this effort... ]
I'm not objecting to you, or to any of the companies out there who
do business honestly. The trouble is I never seem to see any of them,
just doubleclick and their ilk. I'm sorry that they've given a bad name
to an industry that you enjoyed working in, and I acknowledge that this is
not your fault.
But that doesn't mean the bastards have stopped being bastards. And as you say,
they rather outnumber the ethical organisations.
And blocking cookies doesn't hurt those people, because they don't care
what you think *anyway*. Blocking the ads doesn't help, because they
don't *expect* you to click; you're not their target market. So what
you're doing DOESN'T WORK. It is never GOING to work. It just drives
the honest companies out of the business. And that's sad.
I don't want to hurt them particularly - I just don't want them to know
any more about me than is absolutely necessary. Because if they have that
data, they will use it, and since we seem to be in agreement on their ethical standards, I hope you can understand my reluctance.
I regret the impact on honest businesses. On the other hand, I don't leave my front door unlocked. You could argue this makes it harder for my friends to visit, and that it doesn't bother
the thieves who will just go steal from someone else. Nevertheless, I lock my door just the same.
But if that's what you want, you go right ahead.
It's not what I want, but I don't see myself as the author of your misfortune.
Your anger would be better directed at those agencies who earned the
distrust and hatred of so many people by their relentless exploitation
of the online community safe in the (as it turns out fallacious) knowledge
that there was nothing we could do about it.
As you describe your business, I doubt I would have blocked your adverts
anyway. I try to block only on need, when something gets in the way of
my getting the job done.
I doubt I'd have enabled cookies though. Do you remember what it was like
five years ago even trying to block cookies? Every widget on a page had it's
own cookie. There were webbugs from companies that had no ads on the page and
no connection with it - other than that they wanted to know where I'd been
and what I was doing. It got to the point where, at dial up rates,
a significant part of my surf time was being spent downloading cookies.
And there comes a point where you say "whose machine is this, anyway?"
> That presumes that my computer is a
> democracy and that you and your
> advertisers are citizens of it and
> have votes.
Nope. It presumes that your connection to my web site is a shared
property,
Odd, I could have sworn you told me that I was not entitled to do as
I wished on my own computer because you and your advertisers outvoted me.
Your example is flawed, anyway, because there's no rational reason I
couldn't turn it around and say every web site you ever visit has a
vote over your browser.
Damn right it's flawed. It's your logic.
So I say "hey, you know, I don't get paid for the lemonade unless you use my cups; my advertiser counts the cups in the trash every day". You say "oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know" -- and you throw away a few cups. (This is an ad blocker that DOES count you as having seen the ad.)
Do these cups follow me down the road making notes on my activities for the day. Do they interrupt my every conversation, my every sentence, telling me how great your lemonade is, sometimes long after I've left your stall? Do they jump up and block my path when I try to leave?
No? Then it's hardly analogous, is it?
> You do not get to define the rules of the
> game to suit yourself.
I didn't. I defined the rules of the game as they currently exist:
I keep asking you this question and you keep ignoring it. According
to whom? You cite these supposed "facts" of yours in a tone of absolute
authority, but you have yet to offer any evidence in
support of your theories. Until you do, all you have for me is opinions, and mine are at least as good as yours, possibly better since I don't attempt to misrepresent mine as facts.
And while I sympathise with your decision never to vote in any election
More abuse of the notion of democracy. The system under discussion is
not a democracy, there is no common constitution, and kindly stop trying to
project electoral stereotypes onto me, thank you so very much.
> I have no faith in cookies as a feedback
> mechanism.
It doesn't matter; they're the only feedback mechanism we have. We need
to say "who are you?" and get something back that can be looked up in
a database to figure out what ads will suit you best. Cookies can do
that. What else can do that?
I could certainly debate the notion that cookies are the only feedback
mechanism we have. You'd have to be blind not to realise how hated are
some tricks of online advertising, not that the industry seems to pay any
attention. Indeed the adblock software you complain so bitterly about
is itself a feedback signal. One of deafening magnitude, I should have
thought.
But that's not really the issue. The issue isn't even one of whether
the industry will pay any attention to these supposed "votes". The
biggest flaw in your argument is this: Cookies cannot convey
my dislike of an advertisement, and without that information
the only "improvement" will be in the level skill manifest in the
adverts which seek to manipulate me.
Suppose I see some popup ads and allow them to plant cookies. When the
data gathered makes it back to home base, the agency says "hey, he's seen a
whole bunch of these popup ads - he must like them. Let's send him a
whole load more". Or are you now going to tell me that to "vote" I have to
click on the damn things as well?
Cookies cannot convey my hatred of popup and popunders. They comminicate
neither the loathing I have for animated flash banners that make sounds
to draw my attention, nor the depth my dislike of ads that flash, jump
about or masquerade as system error messages. All cookies do is tell
if I've viewed these ad
According to the site's owner and advertisers, which outvotes *you* at least two to one.
That presumes that my computer is a democracy and that you and your advertisers are citizens of it and have votes. I know that none of you paid for the hardware, nor for the electricity or connection costs, so it's "no representation without taxation" as far as I'm concerned.
But assuming for a second that your logic is sound: There are you and your advertisers on the one hand. That's how many? A dozen? No more surely. Now how many on my side. Let's assume that your site has a thousand visitors. Given the popularity of software like adblock, it's likely that the majority of them dislike your adverts. At one thousand to a dozen, I think you'll find that we outvote you. Or are you going to tell me that I don't have a vote on your computer?
Isn't it interesting the arguments you can construct when you abuse the notion of democracy?
So once again: according to whom?
> For my ad blocking to be considered
> theft, I would have to have made a
> formal agreement.
Not really. If you do something that costs me money, and you *know* it's
going to cost me money, and I haven't agreed to let you do it, most legal
precedents I've seen seem to be in agreement that you are in fact liable.
Let's say you run a stall selling apples. I walk past and do not buy an apple. You then say "By willfully not buying my apples, you are costing me money. That's against the law!" I can't see this one flying in court.
Historically, the web has always been free to access except in cases where a formal agreement is made in advance. Even today there is enough free-to-access content that I think court would find that a reasonable expectation. If you cover your costs by making an agreement with one or more advertising companies, that agreement is between you and them. It does not compel me to view the advertising.
If you don't like that, then take your site subscription only. If you do so, then and only then, are you in a position to dictate the terms under which I view your site. That way I know in advance how much access is going to cost me, unlike adverts where I pay with my time, again and again and again. But if you do go for a subscription model, I shall expect it to be advert free.
Of course, nobody is going to sue you for two bucks, so it doesn't make much practical difference to YOU; it only makes a difference to the webmaster with thousands of people who *all* steal two bucks. But that's not your problem, is it?
But you seem to think it's OK for popups and other distractions to steal
twenty minutes of my time for each hour I surf? I charge by the hour for
my time. Bad adverts can waste as much as one third of my browsing time.
And they do this to everyone. Do you not think you're operating
under a double standard here?
I have noticed a certain pattern where people who don't produce anything of value seem to believe that they should have free and unlimited access to anything *I* create...
I can sympathise with that.
For what it's worth I do offer the fruits of some of my
labors
to the world. It's not a huge contribution on the cosmic scale of things, I'll grant:)
> One thing that seems beyond dispute
> is that your argument has no legal
> force.
It's *legal* to take things out of someone else's cart at the supermarket,
because technically it's still the property of the supermarket until
they buy it. That doesn't make it right.
See, this is the problem I have with your argument: When it's the website
owner or advertser, it's ok
No, they're not. You *trade* watching the ad for using the web site, so you don't have to pay any actual money.
Really? According to whom?
But you're stealing from *them* when you use an ad blocker. Either they paid for something they didn't get (showing you the ad), or you DIDN'T pay for something you DID get (viewing the web site).
Show me where I signed. For my ad blocking to be considered theft, I would have to have made a formal agreement. You obviously feel that there is some sort of contract implicit in the act of accessing a web site. I strongly disagree.
One thing that seems beyond dispute is that your argument has no legal force.
My computer means my rules. If you want an explicit contract, make your site subscription-only and I will not view it at all. If I attempt to access that site without paying and in full knowledge of the terms and conditions, then, maybe I could be convicted of theft. Other than that your assertion is debatable at best.
If you don't like that, you could try making ads that don't actually annoy me, and then I would not block them. I have no objection to well behaved ads and I only block those that are overly distracting, intrusive or that try to install malware.
Unfortunately, not annoying people doesn't see to be a high priority with online ad agencies. Which is what prompted me to install adblock and privoxy in the first place. believe it or not, I was strongly in favour of the first few web ads I saw. This was back when all you saw were discrete banner ads that didn't get in the way of my conducting my online business.
You still haven't made anything resembling a case for why I should leave cookies enabled on my browser. In fact unless you count personal insults, you haven't even made a case for why I should allow any advertising at all.
You seem to be saying that it is acceptable for advertisers to embrace the postmodern amorality so popular in corporate circles, and yet that consumers who do the same are bad people.
I pay for my connect time in cash. Your hypothetical user may operate a double standard but your scenario hardly applies to the majority of internet denizens.
On the other hand, the amorality of internet advertising is far from hypothetical. Just look at the prevalence of popups and popunders. Look at the ads that jump, flash, play sounds and generally attempt to prevent the user from attending to his online pursuits.
All these deliberate distractions waste my time. If we accept the notion that time is money, and my time is most definitely worth money, then these advertisers, by wasting my time, are stealing from me.
And the response of the advertising community to the complaints of users has been to research more intrusive advertising techniques. Popups without close buttons, popups that launch new popups on exits, browser traps and re-directs...
If the ad industry is suffering at the hands of advert blockers, they have only themselves to blame. This software was developed in response to the overly intrusive nature of online advertising, and its popularity only reflects how widespread the is dislike of current advertising methodologies.
In any case, cute as your story is, I still don't see a compelling case why I should enable cookies and allow advertisers to compile a dossier on my web browsing habits. Like I said, it's none of their business.
Its not that cookies are such a bad thing when used correctly
Bad for whom?
Educate the masses on the benefits and advertisers would see positive results. Who knows maybe they wouldnt have to resort to making ever more annoying advertisements just to try and snare my attention.
And no doubt spammers worldwide would suddenly see the errors of their ways and spam no more, give that targetted ads driven by tracking cookies were suddenly so effective...
I'm sorry, I can't see it. Advertising is not an industry known for it's string ethical stance, and let's face it, such plagues as popups and flash ads were rife long before most people started disabling cookies.
Logging in isn't such a big problem. I allow session cookies where they have a clear and useful purpose, so I only have to click that button once or twice a day.
And besides which, my surfing habits are none of their business.
It goes contrary to the spirit of free software; We have no comment from Stallman or Eblen on the subject; If developers don't like it (and why would they?) they can stick with v2.0. If too many people don't like it they'll change to another licence - or stick with v2.0. And even if it did turn out that Mogen had turned to the Dark Side, it's still only going to be a discussion document. Time to panic later if need be
The FSF folks aren't stupid. This is going to be FUD, you just watch.
Except that we're not giving software to IBM. We're giving it to everyone. There's a big difference.
It's not as though we lose anything by this act of giving. Nor are we dependent on IBM for some recompense for our actions. We already had our payback when we wrote the software - something that in many cases none of us could have done on our own.
Must we be so terrified of doing something good for someone all the time? Have we become so miserly a culture, desperately hoarding every last byte of data, fearful that someone else may benefit from it? Who cares if IBM get more than they contribute? They are not obligated to contribute at all! There are no legers to be balanced for FLOSS projects, no shareholders to satisfy, no threat of bankrupcy waiting in the wings. All those evolutionary pressures that drive modern corporations to behave so badly hold no terror for us.
It's a different worldview. A different paradigm. It's a world where we don't have to be bastards just because a lot of the others are. That's not something to fear, that's something to celebrate.
Well, since you seem to be defending Salon.com rather than advocating sleazeball marketing methods, I think we're pretty much in agreement.
As regards collecting personal data to better serve your customer base... I'm not sure how well that works. In the offline world this sort of customer profiling seems to have led to the brutal homogenization of televison. They keep tweaking their output to give us what they think will attract new viewers, and what we end uop getting is bland mind numbing pap. Other media aren't far behind, either.
Online however, there's a chance for niche sites to flourish with a relatively small market share. I'd be happier for a site to follow their own vision and to attract readers based upon that vision, rather than have them endlessly second guess what I want. There are a gazillion portal pages out there that already do thisI visit Yahoo! once in a blue moon, mainly because I can remember when it used to be good:( However, I'd hate to see yahoo become the model for the web of tomorrow.
A registration screen is most likely to drive me away from a site. If I absolutely have to go there, I'll enter misleading data because even if the company is trustworthy they could get hacked, bought out by SpammyBastards Inc, go bust and have their data sold off as equity...
I can't see a single way that giving them my data can benefit me, and many ways in which it potentially harms me. Registration screens considered harmful, QED.
So they make an income from the registration details they take? By selling them on to marketers, one assumes.
You can't assume that.
I rather think I can. It was
your post
that suggested a revenue stream from registration data. I don't know of any other way of making money from such data. I can sympathise with a
company's desire to understand its customers better, and in that respect
it's rather sad that modern market practices have so poisoned the well
for them. But when we're talking about turning other people's personal data into cash, whoops! My sympathy just evaoporated.
a business model that is based upon supplying personal information to spammers,
mass-marketers and other spies.
That's an invalid assumption.
I can see how it might come over that way in context. So let me rephrase: I do not approve of any business model based upon supplying personal
information to marketers, and I do not feel that I should be required to
condone such a model, either explicity, or implicitly by keeping silent
about my dislike. I make no assumptions about the model used by any
specific site. However, if a company elects to gather my personal data,
I shall not presume that they do it with my benefit in mind.
Consider it a declaration of policy.
Not all marketing is Evil. Not all ads are Evil.
Ads are a separate issue. I could go on about them at great length, but
let's stick to the collection and abuse of personal data where we're at
least borderline on-topic;)
I hate the over-marketization of our society. All I'm
saying is that it's not necessarily evil, and any knee-jerk reaction
that all ads/registration/marketing are Evil is naive.
And yet, if a practice becomes considered abhorrent through persistent and
unrepentant abuse, possibly by a very active minority, how then are the
majority that abhor such a practice to comminicate this to the practicioners?
The poster that you told to "grow up" and to "deal with it" was offering
valuable feedback to the marketing industry. If they want this channel to
remain open rather than clogged with registrations for (say) Wile.E.Coyote
of Mozambique, then they need to clean up their act.
Unfortunatelt, this being the ad industry, I suspet they're more like to try and change public perception of the issue - thereby digging a deeper hole for themselves in the long run.
I'm not taking issue with salon.com so much as the "Oh grow up!"/"Just deal with it" attitude of the poster, and the presupposition that the more distasteful aspects modern marketing are somehow both laudable and unavoidable.
So they make an income from the registration details they take? By selling them on to marketers, one assumes. I'm afraid that like the GP, I'm no fan of spam-for-content as a business model.
I will grant the right of Slaon to supply content under terms of their own choosing. I will grant that if we dislike those terms we are free to go elsewhere instead - as in fact I do.
However I do not enjoy registration pages, and see no reason I should be required to enjoy them. Nor do I see any reason why any of us should be required or even expected to approve of a business model that is based upon supplying personal information to spammers, mass-marketers and other spies.
The issue of "hyper rich media congolmerates" is a red herring. there are many sites that provide qualiy content without requiring registration. Others (the New York Times springs to mind) undoubtedly fall into that cateory and yet still collect such information. I do wonder why anyone would spread such FUD. I can only assume that given the topic of the OP, the shills and astroturfers are out in force today.
To summarise: I don't like registration screens, I am never going to like registration screens, and I shall continue to publicly disapprove of them as I see fit.
I rather liked the part about "our PDFs don't suck". Following which they demanded an email address from me in order that I could download a broken PDF where the "this PDF is toner friendly" notice regularly obscures chunks of the page.
Whatever else it does, it does not inspire me to trust their judgement on other areas of software.
Slashdot Mirror
Then there's the cost in terms of usability from worms, virii and and associated hacks. There's the opportunity cost of being denied the chance to learn a bit about my system.
But I don't suppose there's such a thing as a typical set of criteria when deciding which software is best. That makes it a little difficult to dismiss out-of-hand someone's choice as an "irrational bias".
It doesn't sound like you've had a particularly happy experience of linux, but then It doesn't sound like you've had a very typical one either. Of course, some laptop vendors are still a bit linux hostile, but my tosh is fully functional without causing me any real dificulties.
I had more dificulty when internet explorer got subverted on my old windows machine. To fix that I ended up having to re-install the entire OS. Or the system restore disc that didn't include all the drivers. Then there was one from a different vendor that chose to reformat the hard drive. Those incidents cost me quite a few nights when I could have been out partying with my mates. I've lost more time to proprietary software than I ever have to free software.
Really, this all sounds like a grass roots spin on the old Total Cost of Ownership argument. I didn't buy into that for the workplace, and I don't think I believe it in the home either. Sorry.
I have to applaud the way you take a positive stance and look at how apache can be improved. I expect efforts in that direction form an ongoing part of apache development, but the positive attitude is appreciated. It's just a bit sad that your post reads as an endorsemnt of a blatant piece of paid-for propaganda
A lot of people would say "if you don't like that, don't use MS spanners". Fine. Done deal! :)
Just a little way down the metaphorical road, there's a shop that sells spanners at a fraction of the price that MS does. They may not be as pretty, and for some jobs they aren't quite as exact - but they've been getting better for years and the difference is scarcely noticeable these days. And if you can do without the fancy packaging, you can go online and get that same tool free..
And it's then yours to use legally, wherever and however you wish - so long as you don't try and claim you designed it.
So the question is: by what criteria do you evaluate best? None free software, security holes, forced upgrades... with many people these things carry a hefty negative.
What I want to know is this: How highly does the register value its journalistic integrity? If highly, then why print a tariff at all, since it can be used to call any article into question. On the other hand, if they place little value on the that integrity, then why would they not "sell their soul" for 15k? I mean it's not like it's a one off deal -- they get to sell out again and again at 15 grand a time.
I find your faith in the Reg touching. But on this issue, I think I shall have to remain agnostic.
Of course, this being el Reg, I'm never entirely sure whether or not to take said tariff with a pinch of salt. Overall, I think I'm tending toward not.
It doesn't diminish my my affection for the rag, I just don't take them too seriously when they pull sudden a volte-face in favour of someone with deep pockets.
Certainly DS9 dealt reasonably well with the consequences of military action. On the other hand, I don't think I could dismiss the less utopian nature of DS9 (and from what I've seen of it, Enterprise) as being quite so unimportant.
For me at least, Roddenberry's utopian future was Star Trek. Here was a future where we didn't nuke ourselves back to the stone age but made it into space. Here was a future society where the problems had been solved. Here was a world where you could leave exploration to the military, safe in the knowledge that they'd do it right. It was a message of hope for the future.
To me, that was Star Trek. ST:TNG showed that the formula could be updated and still work. DS9 - well, I can commend DS9 for trying something different, and it had a lot of good ideas, but I think it lost its way trying to compete with Bab5.
There are a lot of other reasons why I stopped watching trek: The particle of the week club and the recycled scripts from other genres which gave us a holodeck/timetravel story every three weeks or so to name but two. But more than anything, I think the change in tone is when it stopped being trek for me.
In Roddenberry's trek, a war such as that in DS9 need never have happened. In TOS war was always the illogical solution; the presumption always that a better solution existed. In Berman's Trek, the assumption (of the series if not of the characters) seems reversed; that there will always come a time when, with all the goodwill in the world, violence is unavoidable.
To me, that's a major distinction.
Look at a classic trek cold war episode and the chances are you'll find a tale of two oncew great cultures who near-anhiliated one another; or else a conflict, deadly to both sides, that can only be resolved by settingv aside their differences and declaring peace.
Recent Trek, from what I've seen of it, tends to be full of alien infiltrators, and shadowy, powerful enemies who can only be defeated by immense violence and all out war, because the threat they pose the federation is so grave, there is no other choice.
In classic trek there was always a choice. Sometimes it took a hyper-powerful alien race to make Kirk see it, but it was always there.
On the other hand, I do have a degree of sympathy for the anti-microsoft mob. It's not that Apple are necesarily any better; it's more that MS, its influence being that much more pervasive, has had many, many more opportunities to annoy them. There's a lot of hatred for MS which Apple would be hard pressed to match given its current market share. Given that, people tend to react more strongly when Microsoft starts acting like Dick Dastardly - they've been here before and before and before and they've long since had enough. When Apple does it, they've got enough good will stored up that people tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. So I'll make no apologies for Apple, but I think "double standard" and "childish" are maybe a bit harsh.
Look, I only really own one chess set. I may have owned a few over the years, but it's not like some mad marketroid is pressuring me to buy a new one every quarter - "this time with different colours".
And if I do get a chess board, I know it's going to be Chess that I get to play on it. Not draughts with chessmen symbols embossed on the counters. And I don't need to worry about the Rook piece being held back to help sell the forthcoming expansion pack: "Black Queen's Revenge"
I'm not denying that there is innvoation in the industry. It's just that there's a lot of virulently marketed tripe which makes it hard to find the good new games. At £30 a pop, I'm loathe to take the gamble any more.
Now factor in the way the big boys are pushing console based gaming, so they can control the channel and further stifle crativity. I don't think gaming is going to die. I do think however that it's a bubble, and a bubble that is due to burst.
If you think it'd help, I could turn on caps lock and swear for a bit...
Golly, yes. Imagine having the temerity to try and hold a discussion on a discussion board. How evil.
I wonder if Secure Startup will be able to distiguish a linux installation from a hard drive "compromise". I would be sad if there was such a bug. Imagine how enthusiastically MS would leap into action to get it fixed.
I also agree that this is getting tedious, so I'll try and be brief.
I applaud your moral stance, I acknowledge your propriety in your business methods. I even sympathise over the failure of your advertising business, since lord knows the world could use more ethical advertisers.
[ My initial comment that you took such exception to, was that the ad industry is not renowned for its strong ethical stance. Here you are echoing that sentiment. After all this effort... ]I'm not objecting to you, or to any of the companies out there who do business honestly. The trouble is I never seem to see any of them, just doubleclick and their ilk. I'm sorry that they've given a bad name to an industry that you enjoyed working in, and I acknowledge that this is not your fault.
But that doesn't mean the bastards have stopped being bastards. And as you say, they rather outnumber the ethical organisations.
I don't want to hurt them particularly - I just don't want them to know any more about me than is absolutely necessary. Because if they have that data, they will use it, and since we seem to be in agreement on their ethical standards, I hope you can understand my reluctance.I regret the impact on honest businesses. On the other hand, I don't leave my front door unlocked. You could argue this makes it harder for my friends to visit, and that it doesn't bother the thieves who will just go steal from someone else. Nevertheless, I lock my door just the same.
It's not what I want, but I don't see myself as the author of your misfortune. Your anger would be better directed at those agencies who earned the distrust and hatred of so many people by their relentless exploitation of the online community safe in the (as it turns out fallacious) knowledge that there was nothing we could do about it.As you describe your business, I doubt I would have blocked your adverts anyway. I try to block only on need, when something gets in the way of my getting the job done.
I doubt I'd have enabled cookies though. Do you remember what it was like five years ago even trying to block cookies? Every widget on a page had it's own cookie. There were webbugs from companies that had no ads on the page and no connection with it - other than that they wanted to know where I'd been and what I was doing. It got to the point where, at dial up rates, a significant part of my surf time was being spent downloading cookies.
And there comes a point where you say "whose machine is this, anyway?"
Odd, I could have sworn you told me that I was not entitled to do as I wished on my own computer because you and your advertisers outvoted me.
Damn right it's flawed. It's your logic.
Do these cups follow me down the road making notes on my activities for the day. Do they interrupt my every conversation, my every sentence, telling me how great your lemonade is, sometimes long after I've left your stall? Do they jump up and block my path when I try to leave?
No? Then it's hardly analogous, is it?
I keep asking you this question and you keep ignoring it. According to whom? You cite these supposed "facts" of yours in a tone of absolute authority, but you have yet to offer any evidence in support of your theories. Until you do, all you have for me is opinions, and mine are at least as good as yours, possibly better since I don't attempt to misrepresent mine as facts.
More abuse of the notion of democracy. The system under discussion is not a democracy, there is no common constitution, and kindly stop trying to project electoral stereotypes onto me, thank you so very much.
I could certainly debate the notion that cookies are the only feedback mechanism we have. You'd have to be blind not to realise how hated are some tricks of online advertising, not that the industry seems to pay any attention. Indeed the adblock software you complain so bitterly about is itself a feedback signal. One of deafening magnitude, I should have thought.
But that's not really the issue. The issue isn't even one of whether the industry will pay any attention to these supposed "votes". The biggest flaw in your argument is this: Cookies cannot convey my dislike of an advertisement, and without that information the only "improvement" will be in the level skill manifest in the adverts which seek to manipulate me.
Suppose I see some popup ads and allow them to plant cookies. When the data gathered makes it back to home base, the agency says "hey, he's seen a whole bunch of these popup ads - he must like them. Let's send him a whole load more". Or are you now going to tell me that to "vote" I have to click on the damn things as well?
Cookies cannot convey my hatred of popup and popunders. They comminicate neither the loathing I have for animated flash banners that make sounds to draw my attention, nor the depth my dislike of ads that flash, jump about or masquerade as system error messages. All cookies do is tell if I've viewed these ad
That presumes that my computer is a democracy and that you and your advertisers are citizens of it and have votes. I know that none of you paid for the hardware, nor for the electricity or connection costs, so it's "no representation without taxation" as far as I'm concerned.
But assuming for a second that your logic is sound: There are you and your advertisers on the one hand. That's how many? A dozen? No more surely. Now how many on my side. Let's assume that your site has a thousand visitors. Given the popularity of software like adblock, it's likely that the majority of them dislike your adverts. At one thousand to a dozen, I think you'll find that we outvote you. Or are you going to tell me that I don't have a vote on your computer?
Isn't it interesting the arguments you can construct when you abuse the notion of democracy?
So once again: according to whom?
Let's say you run a stall selling apples. I walk past and do not buy an apple. You then say "By willfully not buying my apples, you are costing me money. That's against the law!" I can't see this one flying in court.
Historically, the web has always been free to access except in cases where a formal agreement is made in advance. Even today there is enough free-to-access content that I think court would find that a reasonable expectation. If you cover your costs by making an agreement with one or more advertising companies, that agreement is between you and them. It does not compel me to view the advertising.
If you don't like that, then take your site subscription only. If you do so, then and only then, are you in a position to dictate the terms under which I view your site. That way I know in advance how much access is going to cost me, unlike adverts where I pay with my time, again and again and again. But if you do go for a subscription model, I shall expect it to be advert free.
But you seem to think it's OK for popups and other distractions to steal twenty minutes of my time for each hour I surf? I charge by the hour for my time. Bad adverts can waste as much as one third of my browsing time. And they do this to everyone. Do you not think you're operating under a double standard here?
I can sympathise with that. For what it's worth I do offer the fruits of some of my labors to the world. It's not a huge contribution on the cosmic scale of things, I'll grant :)
See, this is the problem I have with your argument: When it's the website owner or advertser, it's ok
One thing that seems beyond dispute is that your argument has no legal force.
My computer means my rules. If you want an explicit contract, make your site subscription-only and I will not view it at all. If I attempt to access that site without paying and in full knowledge of the terms and conditions, then, maybe I could be convicted of theft. Other than that your assertion is debatable at best.
If you don't like that, you could try making ads that don't actually annoy me, and then I would not block them. I have no objection to well behaved ads and I only block those that are overly distracting, intrusive or that try to install malware.
Unfortunately, not annoying people doesn't see to be a high priority with online ad agencies. Which is what prompted me to install adblock and privoxy in the first place. believe it or not, I was strongly in favour of the first few web ads I saw. This was back when all you saw were discrete banner ads that didn't get in the way of my conducting my online business.
You still haven't made anything resembling a case for why I should leave cookies enabled on my browser. In fact unless you count personal insults, you haven't even made a case for why I should allow any advertising at all.
I'm still not convinced
I pay for my connect time in cash. Your hypothetical user may operate a double standard but your scenario hardly applies to the majority of internet denizens.
On the other hand, the amorality of internet advertising is far from hypothetical. Just look at the prevalence of popups and popunders. Look at the ads that jump, flash, play sounds and generally attempt to prevent the user from attending to his online pursuits.
All these deliberate distractions waste my time. If we accept the notion that time is money, and my time is most definitely worth money, then these advertisers, by wasting my time, are stealing from me.
And the response of the advertising community to the complaints of users has been to research more intrusive advertising techniques. Popups without close buttons, popups that launch new popups on exits, browser traps and re-directs...
If the ad industry is suffering at the hands of advert blockers, they have only themselves to blame. This software was developed in response to the overly intrusive nature of online advertising, and its popularity only reflects how widespread the is dislike of current advertising methodologies.
In any case, cute as your story is, I still don't see a compelling case why I should enable cookies and allow advertisers to compile a dossier on my web browsing habits. Like I said, it's none of their business.
I'm sorry, I can't see it. Advertising is not an industry known for it's string ethical stance, and let's face it, such plagues as popups and flash ads were rife long before most people started disabling cookies.
Logging in isn't such a big problem. I allow session cookies where they have a clear and useful purpose, so I only have to click that button once or twice a day.
And besides which, my surfing habits are none of their business.
The FSF folks aren't stupid. This is going to be FUD, you just watch.
It's not as though we lose anything by this act of giving. Nor are we dependent on IBM for some recompense for our actions. We already had our payback when we wrote the software - something that in many cases none of us could have done on our own.
Must we be so terrified of doing something good for someone all the time? Have we become so miserly a culture, desperately hoarding every last byte of data, fearful that someone else may benefit from it? Who cares if IBM get more than they contribute? They are not obligated to contribute at all! There are no legers to be balanced for FLOSS projects, no shareholders to satisfy, no threat of bankrupcy waiting in the wings. All those evolutionary pressures that drive modern corporations to behave so badly hold no terror for us.
It's a different worldview. A different paradigm. It's a world where we don't have to be bastards just because a lot of the others are. That's not something to fear, that's something to celebrate.
As regards collecting personal data to better serve your customer base... I'm not sure how well that works. In the offline world this sort of customer profiling seems to have led to the brutal homogenization of televison. They keep tweaking their output to give us what they think will attract new viewers, and what we end uop getting is bland mind numbing pap. Other media aren't far behind, either.
Online however, there's a chance for niche sites to flourish with a relatively small market share. I'd be happier for a site to follow their own vision and to attract readers based upon that vision, rather than have them endlessly second guess what I want. There are a gazillion portal pages out there that already do thisI visit Yahoo! once in a blue moon, mainly because I can remember when it used to be good :( However, I'd hate to see yahoo become the model for the web of tomorrow.
A registration screen is most likely to drive me away from a site. If I absolutely have to go there, I'll enter misleading data because even if the company is trustworthy they could get hacked, bought out by SpammyBastards Inc, go bust and have their data sold off as equity...
I can't see a single way that giving them my data can benefit me, and many ways in which it potentially harms me. Registration screens considered harmful, QED.
Consider it a declaration of policy.
Ads are a separate issue. I could go on about them at great length, but let's stick to the collection and abuse of personal data where we're at least borderline on-topicThe poster that you told to "grow up" and to "deal with it" was offering valuable feedback to the marketing industry. If they want this channel to remain open rather than clogged with registrations for (say) Wile.E.Coyote of Mozambique, then they need to clean up their act.
Unfortunatelt, this being the ad industry, I suspet they're more like to try and change public perception of the issue - thereby digging a deeper hole for themselves in the long run.
It's not about Salon.com.
I will grant the right of Slaon to supply content under terms of their own choosing. I will grant that if we dislike those terms we are free to go elsewhere instead - as in fact I do.
However I do not enjoy registration pages, and see no reason I should be required to enjoy them. Nor do I see any reason why any of us should be required or even expected to approve of a business model that is based upon supplying personal information to spammers, mass-marketers and other spies.
The issue of "hyper rich media congolmerates" is a red herring. there are many sites that provide qualiy content without requiring registration. Others (the New York Times springs to mind) undoubtedly fall into that cateory and yet still collect such information. I do wonder why anyone would spread such FUD. I can only assume that given the topic of the OP, the shills and astroturfers are out in force today.
To summarise: I don't like registration screens, I am never going to like registration screens, and I shall continue to publicly disapprove of them as I see fit.
Maybe you should learn to deal with it.
I rather liked the part about "our PDFs don't suck".
Following which they demanded an email address from me in order that I could download a broken PDF where the "this PDF is toner friendly" notice regularly obscures chunks of the page.
Whatever else it does, it does not inspire me to trust their judgement on other areas of software.