Linux Today Founder Calls for Boycott of Linux Today

dave writes "I founded and managed Linux Today in 1998, bringing it up from nothing into the most powerful and large Linux news website in the world, in less than a year. I am now calling on the Linux community to boycott my creation until its current owners stop accepting money from Microsoft to publish blatantly anti-Linux/pro-Microsoft ads."

Why?

[Rombuu]

Are Linux Today's readers too stupid to think for themselves?

Boycott?

[Skyshadow]

Wait, so this Linux advocacy site manages to get Microsoft to pay them to run ads that anyone who actually *goes* to the site will just laugh off anyhow, and we're supposed to *boycott* them?

Jesus Christ, we should be giving these guys a medal!

Mommy, M$ isn't playing fair

[webguru4god]

This seems like a rather harsh approach to take against LinuxWorld, and somewhat childish as well. How do we know that Microsoft is specifically paying for advertisement on LinuxToday, and not just blanket advertising on internet.com?

And then does that mean that we should boycott /. because they often display M$ ads? Or maybe anti-Linux people should boycott Windows-centric sites when they feature advertising from RedHat or Sun.

Seems to me like the best option to take would be to urge LinuxToday to not support M$ advertising if they are indeed given a choice on what they advertise, instead of just boycotting them out of anger.

i.e., don't click...

[tcopeland]

...here [linuxtoday.com].

I sympathize with his points, and it's not just LinuxToday. I received the July 2004 (odd enough, that) copy of Dr. Dobbs Journal and thought "wow, it's really getting to be pretty thick". Then I realized that the middle 40% of the magazine was a long Microsoft advertisement. After ripping that out, there wasn't much left - except for 4 different articles on Java-to-COM-and-ActiveX bridges. Crikey.

Doesn't bother me

[dananderson]

I suspect the ads are served through some third party or link exchange.

In any case, it doesn't bother me if Microsoft throws money at a Linux-oriented website. I can ignore or read a Microsoft add and I won't melt in anycase.

whatever

[blackmonday]

Sounds like a bunch of hot air to me. If MS wants to run an ad with their (biased) study of TCO vs Linux, let them. Trust the readers to be smarter than that. Linux represents choice and freedom, not censorship or religion.

Most powerful and largest

[vlad_petric]

bringing it up from nothing into the most powerful and large Linux news website in the world
...
Sure ... And this is published on /. LOL.

I'm just wondering ... how effective are Windoze adds on MS-bashing sites ? IMHO it's more of a problem with the advertising company, not linuxtoday.

Let Microsoft spread all the FUD they want

[HenryKoren]

Let Microsoft spread all the FUD Propaganda they want.

It only shows how they are shitting their pants about the inevitable Linux domination.

Quitcher bitchin'

[Randolpho]

It's money for your rag.

Seriously, so what of Microsoft is anti-Linux. The Linux crowd has been anti-Microsoft for a hell of a lot longer. MS is just trying to catch up, and surprise: they're throwing money your way while they do it.

Has this guy even contacted them?

[CanSpice]

I want to know if this guy has even got in touch with Linux Today in regards to this "controversy." He doesn't mention anything about talking to them, asking them rationally to do something about the Windows ads. It just looks like he's flying off the handle irrationally, and that really detracts from the point he's trying to make.

So, if

[millahtime]

So, if /. has these adds too (which they do) should we boycott /. too? As I am typing this I am reading a M$ ad on the submit page.

Ads? What Ads

[Koldark]

I don't see any ads with FireFox.

Re:Why?

[BlueCodeWarrior]

Not neccesarily. But I can see the validity in the point of "how can we trust them to post unbiased reviews when they are funded by Microsoft"

I don't patronize the site personally, but I could see (in theory) how M$ could say, "well, we see that you're posting this negative stuff about our product, we think we'll pull out those ads..." and if they're counting on those ad dollars for funding, well, it isn't pretty.

And will you...

[Richard_at_work]

replace their lost ad revenue yourself? At least offer them an alternative before you start deriding them for doing something. Oh, and where the hell do YOU get off selling your creation and then acting as if you have a say in it after that, you dont, you gave it up for money so dont preach to me.

Re:Mommy, M$ isn't playing fair

[FortKnox]

I agree. Its knee-jerk reactions like this that give Linux a bad name.

Two words for you guys:
GROW UP!

You are taking away money from the competition, and putting ads on a page that most people ignore anyway. This isn't something to get your panties in a bunch about. Go argue about which editor or distro is the best... it'll make you feel better ;-)

Please, these aren't tobacco ads

[ChiralSoftware]

I appreciate this guy's point, but:

• The publishing business is rough. You have to do what you have to do. I read Maxim magazine. They have a huge circulation, are very popular, they get plenty of advertisers, and yet they have to run cigarette ads because they buy some of the most expensive ad slots. What can you do? Ads ultimately are just offering consumers a choice. And these aren't tobacco ads; MS just uses some very agressive/slightly illegal marketing tactics. This isn't selling a product which is known to be addictive and cause cancer.
• What's wrong with Microsoft? They make some truly great software (Office) which runs fine on Linux [codeweavers.com]. I'm a 100% Linux desktop user, and guess what, I buy Microsoft software to run on my Linux box! I don't have a Windows partition either.
• We're all techies here, right? We all believe that technology products should be evaluated on their merits. Does that somehow not apply to Microsoft products? If Microsoft ____ is the best solution for a given application, shouldn't we acknowledge that? Again, this is from a 100% Linux desktop user, who has been a 100% Linux desktop user for years, even back in the old painful days when the best browser was Netscape 4.something. Now I have Mozilla, IE and Konqueror to choose from, all on one desktop, and I chose based on their merits.

-----------
WAP news [chiralsoftware.net]

Is this guy for real?

[rjdohnert]

Why in the bluest blazes of hell would we stop reading Linux today? Why is eveything so, "Linux or bust" I personally use them both and I like them both. Linux has its uses as does Windows and for some things I like using Windows more. Get a life its advertising as the previous readers have said the readers will decide for themselves what they want to use.

Who Cares?

[Wyldstar]

Is it me, or do people pretty much don't care? If Microsoft wants to advertise in their competitions magazine, then let the Magazine decide if it's good for their products or not...

A Boycott will work just like the do not buy gas this day works...

Re:Ads on Slashdot

[Total_Wimp]

And this is the community with the battle cry, "Free, as in speech"?

They aren't playing fair

[phorm]

I've seen a lot of these ads. Their comparison between windows servers and linux servers is really stupid. It's the same tricks that many companies use: compare with different hardware specs, unoptimized kernels/applications, and don't take into account viruses and other related issues. It's not right and I really do get sick of seeing them on OSDN and other networks.

That being said, I understand that OSDN and other sites do need revenue. I also think that most linux users realize the ads are bunk. Rather than a boycott, I'd like to see pro-Linux advertisement in the same way (with real stats) that shows the advantages of linux over windows.

How about graphs comparing: Infection rate, loss due to downtime, webpage serving stats with optimized machines on the same hardware, etc?

managers can read...

[mgoodman]

...but unfortunately they tend to only read headlines. if the headline is a bunch of microsoft FUD, then it makes your job just that much more aggravating.

I try to avoid conversations like this:
PointyHairedBoss: "Why are we using this Unix crap!?"
Me: "Because, you stupid wanker, it has been up for 745 days without crashing and without any problems. And big woop if I cost a little more if your systems are stable and secure!? Now get outta my server room!"

Re:Ads on Slashdot

[Frizzle Fry]

I've always thought of /. as a very pro-linux community

The slashdot community is pro-linux. But this isn't about the community, this is about ads. The ads reflect the advertiser running them. They aren't necessarily endorsed and loved by the editors of the site. Dave Whitinger seems to believe that the fact that an ad is run means that the site supports or endorses it. This is ridiculous. If this were the case, it would mean that every advertisement would be paying for the editors of the site to endorse the product advertised. That's not what we want. Ads should not be a reflection of the views of the site; encouraging us to view them as such threatens the site's integrity by tying its content to the identity of its sponsors. It's better to create a clear separation between the sites editorial views and the money given by advertisers, so that we believe the views we are getting are unbiased. Telling us to treat the sites ads as paid endorsements works against that goal.

Re:whatever

[maxbang]

Hot air, indeed. No doubt posting a Linux Today article on the front page of Slashdot will induce a flood of traffic to their site, in effect negating the call for a boycott. Is that irony?

ignore them

[scharkalvin]

I really don't get upset by the M$ ads in Linux Magazine or on Linux Today. (GWB's negative tv ad's for his re-election irk me more).
Let Bill bankroll Linux web sites and magazines with ad's that Linux people will just laugh at. If they are foolish to take out a centerfold magazine ad, use it to wrap fish!

Sorry, pal.

[lukewarmfusion]

Boycott a site because it runs ads (likely served by an outside provider) that you don't like?

I realize it's a sore subject when you bring up capitalism within a community that shouts FREE from the top of its lungs, but your request bothers me. Are you afraid that LinuxToday users are going to convert to Windows because of a banner ad? Or that Microsoft is going to influence those masses of Linux users?

I thought the "Free" was meant as "Free Speech"?

[Zenin]

I thought the "Free" in "Free Software" was meant as "Free Speech"? Now there's a boycott effort in the free software community to try and limit MS's freedom of speech?

Ok, so I'm no big fan of MS either, but I must conclude that anyone who takes part in such an effort has lost any moral argument about "free software" being at all about "free speech".

Re:Why?

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

But what about those who are just venturing into the Linux world and are just getting thier feet wet. There are a lot of those and they don't understand it all yet.

Oh, the poor little babies! We shall have to hold their hands and make sure the big bad Microsoft doesn't molest them! Your benevolent uncle will show you the way!

Good Lord! This is the silliest thing I've ever heard. Those "just venturing" into Linux already have a clue and can protect themselves from M$ FUD. I love this "just venturing" crap, it's like saying when you go down to the strip and pick up hoes' and have them paddle your ass, your "just venturing" to see if you like sex. "just venturing". Good grief.

Re:Ads on Slashdot

[cheesybagel]

Oh and to the people who shrugh the lies and damned lies in these Microsoft ads as so blatantly false that anyone will see them as what they are, remember, if you repeat a lie long enough, people start believing it. We cannot leave such lies uncontested.

Re:So, if

[slipstick]

Nope, because the similarity is only skin deep.

While /. is primarily pro-linux, Linux is not it's entire reason for being. Information of all types for Nerds is given, including but not limited to Oracle, IBM, your rights on-line, hardware, gaming, PDA's etc.,etc.

LinuxToday is "only" a Linux site. Accepting money
from a biased source to provide FUD is insulting to the community that the site is directed at.

I accept the /. presentation of the Microsoft FUD because this isn't a Linux only site.

No, it's not "great"

[Anonymous Coward]

Which one do you think has more credibility, an article in a pro-Linux magazine saying "Linux is x" or a slick Microsoft advertisement saying "Microsoft is more x than Linux will ever be"?

The CTOs believe what they're told.

Microsoft is the enemy. They are currently responsible for the oncoming death of the consumer home computing, they offer nothing more than enabling technologies for various forms of spyware, adware and other malware. Is that what you want your mom and pop to use at home? Don't have anything to do with Microsoft! Do not support them. Do NOT accept their advertisements. Let people know of the alternatives, and let the evildoers disappear by their own bad merits.

Re:Ads on Slashdot

[Openstandards.net]

So, free speech now means being silent when corporate cash is used to spread FUD diluting the truth?

Boycotting is speech and democracy combined.

Re:Why?

[1000StonedMonkeys]

Or, perhaps Microsoft said to themselves, "They're publishing negative articles about our products, let's put some adds up to negate the effect." In that case, it would be in LW's best interest to continue being negative about Microsoft products, lest Microsoft no longer have a need to place adds there.

Or, here's another theory I think is even more plausible:

Microsoft certainly doesn't post to /. because of all the nice things slashdotters have to say about them. If I had to guess, I'd say they place the adds because they look and they see that /. is mostly read by people that use their product. Thus, by placing adds on /. they can target potential switchers. I would imagine the same is true of LW.

Overall, I don't think LW has any reason to be pro-microsoft, even with the adds.

Re:Ads on Slashdot

[Openstandards.net]

I believe there's a difference between ads selling a product or service that is unpopular, and ads that deliberately spread fud to counter the purpose and energies put into the community the site supports.

Would you want to support a pro-life site that had advertisements for Planned Parenthood? How about a cancer victim support site with cigarette ads?

Re:Why?

[dougmc]

But I can see the validity in the point of "how can we trust them to post unbiased reviews when they are funded by Microsoft

Ok, let's assume that the Microsoft revenue goes away. How can you trust them to post unbiased reviews when they're funded by Redhat? Or Suse, Mandrake, Sun, IBM. LoneTar (is that thing still around?), whatever?

This is a classic problem, one that affects every magazine that accepts advertisements and does reviews. And there's no real answer, short of what Consumer Reports does -- don't accept ads. Except that magazines like to show a profit, and ads are a good way to do that. The other ways, raising your prices or accepting donations, is iffy at best. It doesn't even work for PBS -- even PBS shows commercials (sort of) for their advertisers now.

Ultimately, if you're actually reading `Linux Today', you can probably already see through the Microsoft FUD. So I have to respond to dave (Mr Linux Today founder) with a `No, I'm not going to boycott Linux Today just because they run Microsoft ads. Sorry.' (Of course, I haven't read Linux Today in a long while, so my lack of boycott hardly means anything.)

So, how did dave lose control of Linux Today? Did he sell out in the height of the dot-com craze? (Like everybody else did?) If so, crawl back to your Porche, drive back to your nice, paid off already house, and stop whining.

Re:Ads on Slashdot

[DickBreath]

If you're going to boycott LinuxToday, you're also going to need to boycott the OSDN which runs many of the same ads.

Not true.

I would never point a decision maker or prospective Linux user to a slashdot link. I might have once pointed them to a Linux Today link.

Re:Money's flowing in the right direction

[transient]

Microsoft (theoretically) makes more than $2000 from that advertisement. A well-run company will always try to do two things: lower expenses and raise revenue. When a company decides to spend money, it (again, theoretically) only does so if it expects to make more money back as a result. ROI isn't just a TLA.

That being said, it's impossible to tell how much money Microsoft made from your brother's site. But just because Microsoft is spending money doesn't mean they're losing money.

Boycotting isn't enough

[los furtive]

You also have to tell them that you're boycotting their product, and why. The best link I could find was to contribute a news story to their site [linuxtoday.com].

Re:Ads on Slashdot

[Davgeary]

I find the call for a boycott astounding. Do we not want people to try the different options available to them and decide which is superior?

Are we so unsure of the superiority of Linux that we believe that a simple banner ad could derail that process of testing and deciding? All the banner ads in the world won't change the basic truths of how things work. I use WinXP at work, because that's what they choose. I use RedHat at home, because that's what I choose. More information is always better than less information when it comes to making decisions.

Dave G.

i don't get it

[pizza_milkshake]

if the ads "work" then LinuxToday's readership will stop using Linux and thus stop reading LinuxToday.

if the ads "don't work" then no one agrees with them and the advertisers are wasting their money. either way, what's the problem?

Re:Why?

[Openstandards.net]

Do you honestly believe Microsoft would spend the money on the ads if they didn't believe it could help their goal?

One of human nature's biggest flaws is that if we hear a lie enough times, we'll believe it. This has been proven over and over throughout history. It's like chinese torture, only with words instead of drops of water.

It isn't intelligence that protects people. It's love for truth and the willingness to continue to resist believing lies no matter how tiring it can be. The line is easily crossed in the technology world because no one considers Linux a step towards getting into heaven.

Re:Ads on Slashdot

[bmw]

More information is always better than less information when it comes to making decisions.

Yes but what about misinformation?

Re:So, if

[kfg]

. . .including but not limited to Oracle, IBM, your rights on-line, hardware, gaming, PDA's etc.,etc.

And even. . .Microsoft.

KFG

Re:Ads on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

And sadly, you're currently (only) modded funny..

Strange, how the "economic filter" through which some view every aspect of life, seem to have a 'fun-house mirror' effect on anything that goes beyond or even simply questions this very fact.

Freedom of speech, ethics, morality, et al., must be endless sources of 'Fuuuuun $hit!' for some people.

Lemmie get this straight

[Schnapple]

1. Guy creates website
2. Guy raises website
3. Guy sells website/leaves/whatever
4. Website runs into trouble staying afloat
5. Website turns desperate and runs ads counter-intuitive to what it promotes
6. Guy who is opposed to ads on formerly his website asks people to boycott website until they stop running the ads which aim to hurt their own cause

What's next, boycott leading to lost revenue from unsold ads and then website closes? Does he really want the website to go out of business rather than serve offensive ads?

And what does it say that Microsoft are the only ones willing to run Linux related ads? By boycotting Linux Today and ensuring it closes (which it probably will since thanks to less readers no one else will want to advertise there) won't people just be hurting the cause they aim to achieve?

And doesn't this guy realize that by this kind of outburst he's just promoting the "Linux Terrorist/Zealot" image?

It's only ads

[Chas]

Given the state of loathing for the ad-driven market today, how truly serious is this?

Do, or do not most people simply, mentally, tune ads out of their perceptions?

Besides, it's advertisment. What kind of a fucking numbskull suddenly expects advertisment to actually contain anything resembling the truth? That goes counter to the entire history of advertisment AS A WHOLE!

Re:Ads on Slashdot

[IWannaBeAnAC]

More information is always better than less information when it comes to making decisions.

Of course. But Microsoft advertisments are the absolute bottom of the heap of crud and lies. Could you really recommend to people to base purchasing decisions on a Microsoft advert?

Re:Witness the amusing irony

[Xabraxas]

A bunch of people calling on a boycott against a website for accepting money from a rival company. They do this by posting on a website that accepts money from the same rival company and sticks their big ads everywhere. This from the "free speech" community.

Once again you missed the point entirely. Slashdot is not a "Linux only" site. It is what they say it is, "News for Nerds". Linux Today on the otherhand is a "Linux only" site. It is just plain stupid and/or greedy to place anti-linux ads on a site that promotes linux and only linux, especially when the studies they cite are biased and FUD-filled.

Slashdot is corporate-owned; I don't think a lot of people realize that. The very day Slashdot stuck banner ads on their stories was the day it lost all credibility for me.

If Slashdot lost all credibility then why are you still here?

Re:Ads on Slashdot

[_Sprocket_]

BTW, Slashdot (or Linux Today for that matter) preach more propaganda and hardly any true journalism work goes into them. That is, and has been, their raison d'etre.

You're forgetting to include, for the most part, the entire technical trade publications industry.

Re:Doesn't bother me

[Openstandards.net]

The problem though isn't when geeks come to Linux sites, but when curious corporate IT managers visit.

Managers used to say, "no one ever got fired by choosing IBM." Today they say, "no one ever got fired by choosing Microsoft."

They don't need truth as much as they need to be able to justify choosing Microsoft or Linux, and the ads give them the justification to continue to take a "safe" position that will be hard to blame problems on.

Both Microsoft and Linux based corporate projects will fail, for causes that have nothing to do with the choice between either. Yet, today, a manager has a much higher likelihood of losing his job or a promotion because he didn't choose Microsoft. The ads reinforce this.

That's why the ridiculous nature of the FUD is a non-issue with Microsoft. It's not how educated the readers are. It's how paranoid the reader is of looking like any failure was caused by a bad decision they made. They won't think about how truthful the ads are, but how the assertions will make them look if they choose Linux and things don't work out as planned. It's how paranoid the reader is, not how intelligent or educated. The more financial responsibility you have, the more you have to spend on software, and the more you have to lose if you make a choice that someone can blame on you.

I can make up my own mind, thanks dave

[djtack]

Why should they refuse ads from Microsoft? Aren't the readers smart enough to make up their own minds about the benefits of Linux? This reminds me of a recent "outrage" when The Nation [thenation.com] ran some full-page ads for Faux News [foxnews.com]. Most of their readers just laughed at Fox for throwing their money away.

I'd rather that organizations who sell ad space have less editorial control. For instance, Adbusters [adbusters.org] and the MoveOn PAC [moveon.org] have repeatedly been denied airtime on network TV, even though they are able to pay for it, simply because the network execs don't like their message. This is a far greater injustice.

Re:Ads on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument is horribly flawed. Take a step back and consider in all these examples WHO makes the decision and WHO does or does not receive the information.

If the person targeted by the informated declines to receive it, that's FINE. That's what this proposed boycott is, and if you really want to read the site, you still can! Reading or not reading the site is still entirely voluntary! But your examples were all those of someone *else* blocking the information.

How effective are these ads?

[Syncdata]

If Microsoft wants to advertise on a website with a anti microsoft stance, what does it hurt for that website to take the money?

It does no harm at all. I always laugh around election seasons when candidates start running radio ads. There is a local conservative station, and last election cycle Ellen Taucher (democrat) was running ads on that station nonstop. The radio station cannot say no to the ad, because politicians have written the law so you can't say no to their ads, and they get a cut rate too. Without going off on a tangent, the effect of these commercials were this.
#1 She spent a lot of money.
#2 She reached a constituency which was likely to vote a straight repub party ticket, and
#3 The conservative radio station made money.

My advice to you is to laugh. Laugh as you receive their funds, and laugh as they go into the bank. If Ford wants to advertise on a website catering to Die Hard Honda enthusiasts, why not take Fords money?

Re:Ads on Slashdot

[Openstandards.net]

So now free speech is "dangerous"?

He can ask the community anything he wants. That's free speech. If the community chooses to do it, that's democracy.

If free speech that can promote democracy is dangerous, then I want to live on the edge.

I loved the book Fahrenheit 451, but I've been boycotting Disney for years, so would never buy the documentary. ROFL!! If you think Moore's documentary is so critical it MUST get out, then you obviously didn't read the 451 book he titles it after, or it didn't sink in.

If a documentary is really that important, then Moore can put it on Bittorent and watch the web links build up. If he wants to make money, though, then that's another story.

Re:Doesn't bother me

[Trillan]

Make sure you click it, too.

Re:Ads on Slashdot

[Openstandards.net]

You think open source is a product? Linux was here long before RedHat arrived on the scene.

Open source, to many people, is a philosophy, not a product.

In the early days of the Internet, before 99% of corporate managers heard of it, and most of the public didn't know what it was either, we discussed how to share code and its potential impact on society, now that we could transmit it anywhere in the world for free instantly, without any geographic barriers.

The debate ended up being over the impact corporations would have, and how their motives of secrecy would run counter, and try to consume open source out of existence. This is why the GPL was created. To protect the ideology... the ability to share code without some commercial enterprise taking ownership.

RedHat is considered a friend of open source by most today. But, I've seen plenty of comments by people concerned about the potential for RedHat to loose sight of its roots. I've also seen plenty of decisions by open source advocates to try to ensure that Linux' future is not one of RedHat and Suse and memories of everything else. Core open source advocates are watching RedHat and Suse very carefully, and are making sure they do not put all their eggs into the corporate basket.

RedHat, by the way, claims to be a service company, not a product company.

Re:Ads on Slashdot

[Scarblac]

I was shocked to find the very same ads mentioned in the article on this site a while back. I've always thought of /. as a very pro-linux community...let alone the OSDN, who, I'm assuming serves the ads.

Let me explain: Linux is a set of software. It's great, it's free, it's powerful, although not for everything. I use it every day. But it's just some software. I guess the Slashdot people also like Linux.

Now what does that have to do with banning Microsoft ads? Since when do you have to be anti-Microsoft to the point of refusing their money because you happen to like using this software, that doesn't even have anything to do with Microsoft?

I also use Windows several days of the week. It's good for some things, bad for others. I don't see why that makes me special.

Remember, "liking Linux" is not a religion or anything. It doesn't mean you suddenly have to be anti-something. It's about running an operating system on your computer. Linus isn't trying to overthrow Microsoft, he's trying to build a rocking kernel.

Re:Ads on Slashdot

[0racle]

If your buying a book about Linux, or Unix in general with an aim to deploying something, you do realize that Microsoft IS an alternative solution. Amazon and Microsoft have done nothing wrong. Your searching for a book on say Operating Systems, guess what category MS falls into.

Stop whining about everything, it makes you sound like little children throwing a temper tantrum when things don't go your way.

Re:And this might be worth some concern

[symbolic]

As long as sucking on Bill's teat doesn't create any issues with respect to journalistic integrity, I'm not worried, and find it rather funny that M$ is supporting the competition.

Re:Ads on Slashdot

[Openstandards.net]

I would agree with you, if the issue was government cencorship.

But, this is democracy in it's purest, not centralized government control.

He's asking individuals to make an individual choice. You are free to choose who you patronage, and you are free to not be influenced by his article or his request that you consider offering your patronage elsewhere, presumably Linux sites that don't host anti-linux slogans.

He's not asking a central dictator to pass a law forbidding free speech.

Re:Ads on Slashdot

[coupland]

Sorry, you're making a fundamental mistake if you think this boycott is wrong. Yes, people should be free to pick and choose, and compare Linux to Windows and choose Windows if they think it's better, and to say so, publicly, and in advertisements. And people should also be allowed to boycott sites companies or products that they don't like. And they should be allowed to do it even for such illogical reasons as "I love Linux, and I hate Windows". Just smile, shake your head, and go on about your day. You don't have to agree, nor does that make them wrong. Just two different, and perfectly valid, opinions.

Re:Ads on Slashdot

[Maestro4k]

• Are we so unsure of the superiority of Linux that we believe that a simple banner ad could derail that process of testing and deciding?

You're missing the point, we're not scared of the TCO studies, we know them to be FUD, and could easily explain how and why to a boss/etc. The problem is that having ads that promote Microsoft at the cost of Linux on a Linux news site gives the impression of lack of confidence in the content on that site. If you were a pointy-haired boss and your IT guys wanted you to read an article on Linux Today and you see those ads panning Linux are you going to be swayed by the article any at all? Most likely not, as the ads have given you the preconceived notion going into the article that Linux costs more than the Microsoft stuff you're already using.

In fact most PHBs would probably see the ads and not bother reading the article.

Re:Ads on Slashdot

[bit01]

Agreed. There is an additional factor though.

It's possible to stop free speech not only with too little message but also with too much noise.

No person can interpret every message out there. Large corporations can and do try to crowd out alternative points of view by the sheer volume of their message. Look at Coca-Cola/McDonalds. How many Coke/McD ad's have you seen? The purpose of their ad's is not to inform you of something you already know but to crowd out the competition's viewpoint. Mindshare is everything.

Having said that I have no problem with open source web sites taking M$ money for limited banner ad's because as long as they are not lying it presents a valid, alternative point of view.

Not surprisingly microsoft.com doesn't allow quid pro quo for exactly that reason. Because M$ presents an unbalanced viewpoint I have no problem with sites like slashdot trying to balance that out.

I have a big problem with the astro-turfers though - they should do jail time for fraud.

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

Re:Ads on Slashdot

[Maestro4k]

• No, you don't have to be silent about your disagreeing with one person's representation of the truth, but asking an entire community to boycott a website due to the advertisements which it runs is a dangerous, dangerous slide into the sort of polarity we see in the United States today.

Bullshit, people ask communities to boycott all kinds of things all the time. The sheer fact that you're disagreeing with all the people supporting the boycott undermines you own argument. Asking a community to support a boycott is not a problem, now if someone forced that community to go along then we'd be sliding down a very dangerous slope.

As it is, he presents his opinion of why Linux Today should be boycotted and asks you to go along with it. You are perfectly free to choose not to. This is democracy in action. If enough people boycott Linux Today because of the MS ads, then they'll either stop running them or go out of business. If enough don't, they'll continue to do whatever they damn well please. It's a lot like voting, only instead of casting a ballot you're choosing whether to visit a site or not.

You're also muddying the issue a bit on the freedom of speech with Microsoft in an ad. Advertisements do not enjoy full freedom of speech, they must not claim and/or imply something that's false is true. Using biased research is one way to get around this, but if the bottom falls out of the research (say you get a whistle-blower who comes out and reports the results were completely made up and Microsoft knew about it) then MS would get in trouble for the ads. Corporations cannot just say anything they want in an ad, laws against false advertising exist for a reason.

Re:So, if

[gujo-odori]

The advertiser's intent is actually not foiled at all.

Why not?

Well, let's first start with what a boycott is supposed to achieve. The intent of a boycott is to make a manufacturer, publisher, or other organization changes its practices by hurting it financially if it doesn't. If you remember the boycott against Nestle over baby formula advertising, you'll recall that people were upset that their advertising strongly implied (if not outright stated) that formula was better than breast milk for babies. Nestle was hardly alone in that, but as probably the biggest player in the market, they became the lightning rod for the criticism.

The trouble with that implying that formula is better, besides the fact that it's simply untrue, is that baby formula needs to be mixed with water. However, in many of the developing countries where they were aggressively marketing formula, both sources of adequately clean water and knowledge of basic practices like boiling the water to make it clean and then using it immediately, refrigerating mixed formula and how long it can be kept, etc., were very scarce. However, the advertising campaigns showing pictures of fat, healthy, smiling babies (in countries where skinny, undernourished babies with inadequate medical care were common) was highly effective. A lot of formula was being needlessly sold to poorly informed parents. The sale of formula is not in itself wrong, of course, nor is formula. Some mothers do not have their milk come on and could not feed their babies without formula. Others don't have enough milk, especially if they have twins or triplets. In those cases, formula is literally a life-saver.

However, because of the scarcity of proper information as to how to properly prepare and store formula, and of its relative value Vs. breast milk causing it to be bought needlessly, many babies were becoming sick, and quite a few dying, as a result of being fed on formula instead of breast milk. Not to mention, of course, that formula is expensive and many poor people were being led to buy it unnecessarily. I used to live in SE Asia and both my kids were born there. Imported, western-brand formula was about 1/3 the price it is here in the U.S., but the average national income where I was living is about $100/month. It was more in the large cities, of course, but that gives you some idea of the relative cost of baby formula.

Now, if you look at a can of baby formula in poor countires, it has instructions on how to prepare formula and boil water written in the local language, and it also states clearly on the can that breast milk is best for your baby.

The boycott worked because a lot of people refused to buy any Nestle product. This hurt Nestle financially and they modified their practices to satisfy their critics and the boycott was called off.

Now, let's relate this to your use of privoxy.

You never see the ad. /. gets the money. Why do they get the money? B/c no one knows you never see the ad (unless they are paid on click-through, in which case they wouldn't get paid anyway unless you clicked the ad). That's problem one.

Problem two is that the ads aren't aimed at you. You are convinced. The ads are aimed at people who are on the fence or who are currently using Windows but are curious about alternatives such as Linux. You can rest assured that most of them are not using an ad blocker. So, they see the add, some may click through, and some of those will buy into the FUD and the advertiser's intent is achieved: a potential defector from Windows to Linux was stopped.

Now, the founder of Linux Today doesn't seem to get how to boycott, either. If you want to effectively boycott a publication (either Internet-based or paper-based, it doesn't matter), you need to do these things:

1) Write to them and tell them you are boycotting their publication and all of its advertisers, and tell them why;

2) Contact each of those advertisers and tell them the same thing, m

Re:Ads on Slashdot

[shaitand]

One amendment which unfortunately invalidates your point... on this subject at least:

"More information is always better than less information when it comes to making decisions."

More ACCURATE and CORRECT information is always better than less information when it comes to making decisions.

The problem is that these ads point to false and doctored information. When a CEO is going to linuxtoday because he's being asked to make a multi-million dollar switch and wants to have a peek at what he's buying... well there's nothing wrong with him seeing accurate information from both sides. But when he goes to linuxtoday and sees links to slander published by Microsoft... that's pretty serious. To the level it should be illegal and may well be an abuse of their monopoly.

Microsoft isn't actually allowed to do anything to support or encourage their own status as a monopoly after all.

What's wrong with a boycot?

[WebCowboy]

If they find the ads distasteful they aren't forced to view them. Conversely, the site has every right to show the ads. Both sides have their rights, and both have to accept the consequences. Viewers might miss some quality content, but you only piss off your audience so long before the go along with a bunch of advertising revenue.

Also, think of this: Microsoft has seemed quite assured of its superiority but how often do you see IBM ads touting Linux on a Microsoft-branded site such as MSNBC, MSN.COM, Slate etc? Or Sun pushing Java? Or Oracle boasting about their powerful databases? They aren't there with ads AT ALL much less ones that are critical of Microsoft's alternatives.

It has nothing to do with being unsure--it is not professional and looks like desperation (it screams "we'll take advertising money from anyone who offers it to us"). I can completely understand why people are angry.

The ads MS has on Slashdot and other sites are tolerable because THESE SITES DON'T SPECIALISE IN LINUX. They are for general-interest audiences. I don't even have a problem with MS ads on Linux sites if they were relevant (maybe advertising tools for interoperability with other OSes for example, or showing an XBox ad on a gaming or XBox hacking article.

The problem is the ads don't sell their product, they are focused on crapping all over Linux. There is no room for that kind of material on a Linux specialty site, not even in the ads.

Re:And this might be worth some concern

[cshark]

It's funny isn't it?

I would personally take ads from Microsoft or Google, or anyone who wanted ads on any of my web sites. The more the better. It's not really an issue of integrity. It's an issue of getting paid. I like getting paid. It supports things like my smoking habit, and my patch habit, and my food and shelter habit. These things might not sound important if you're living with mom, but trust me. These are the things that matter.

Hey wouldn't it be funny if /. or Linux Today posted the Microsoft ads, but allowed comments on them? That would be a riot. In fact, you might even be able to work out a deal with the beast where their own people can post anti Linux comments to go along with the ads. It would be funny to shoot them down, and it would support the open source community.

It's all in good fun.

YEAH, FUCK FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

[autopr0n]

DAMN MICROSOFT, DAMN THEM TO HELL.

The audacity to pay you to express their opinions, and not only that, but opinions that say mean things about your favorite operating system!!

When will the madness end.

Seriously, you don't have a right not to be offended, and being offended about the OS wars is about the lamest thing evar. As long as the ads are clearly labeled, they should be accepted. Rather then calling for a boycott, write articles explaining why the ads are misleading. M$ will probably pull them themselves if you do. If there's editorial pressure to change the content to better suit the advertisers, then there's a problem. And that should be the problem discussed.

Slashdot runs Microsoft ads, there are lots of people who like working on both windows and Linux (shock, horror!)

Oh well, whatever. I have a suspicion that this boycott will fail miserably.

Sell Out

[Anonymous Coward]

A) You shouldn't have sold out.
B) It's free-as-in-speech, baby. Suck it up.

MS ads on Linux websites? Hey, thier money's good

[dmccunney]

I'm sympathetic, but not overly so.

Websites cost money. The cost for the time of the folks who code them and supply the content; they cost for the server reources that host them; and they particularily cost for the bandwidth they use to provide access to them. The more popular a site gets, the greater that last cost becomes.

Where does the money come from? In most cases, advertising. A few sites have successfully implemented a subscription model for "premium" content, but most rely on ads.

Microsoft has a *lot* of money, and can afford to advertise on half the websites in the known universe. It's no surpise they should make a big push on Linux oriented sites, since Linux is thier principal OS competition.

Personally, I'd hold my nose and take the money. The folks who visit sites like Linux Today are usually sophisticated enough to see through the hype, and not be swayed by MS FUD. Those that aren't sophisticated enough are probably not good candidates for conversion to the First Church of Tux in any case.

The alternative for purists may be that the site goes under, because MS ads made the difference between enough revenue to keep going, and losing your shirt.
______
Dennis

Re:Ads on Slashdot

[pebs]

This is stupid. Let Microsoft waste their money. What are people afraid that these ads are going to scare people away from Linux? If they haven't been scared already, some stupid ad isn't going to change anything.

Re:And will you...

[KarmaMB84]

I find it funny that you advocate forcing a website to discriminate and censor the ads that appear on its pages. Isn't Linux about openness and freedom?

Re:And this might be worth some concern

[midol]

whoever pays the piper calls the tune