Disgusted
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Koriel Nov 09, 2004 2:14 AM EDT |
I have finally deleted Linux Today from my bookmarks, when i came across the ad for Microsofts "Get The Facts" on their website today. Ive been putting it off for a while but this was the last straw and im pretty disgusted that a so called linux oriented news site can post or link to this pap. Dave was right when he "outed" them a while back. Rant mode off! |
| slippery Nov 19, 2004 2:48 PM EDT |
Oh, yes. I replaced linuxtoday with LXer about 4 months ago. I kind of forgot linuxtoday was still there :) |
| bstadil Nov 19, 2004 4:21 PM EDT |
I replaced linuxtoday with LXer Same here. |
| phsolide Nov 20, 2004 7:12 AM EDT |
I too got disgusted with Linux Today's allowing MSFT ads to run. The recent article where Brian Profitt was pleading that he didn't know what ads ran, and besides, he believed in freedom of speech was just amazing. First, advertising isn't protected speech. The owner of the forum gets to decide what ads to run for the most part. Funny how MSFT ads are great, and sacred, but if/when someone like AdBusters wants to run an ad, then it's just the other way around. Feh! Advertising is all lies anyway. Advertising always has a pernicious effect on editorial policy, too. I replaced Linux Today with LXer a while back. |
| cjcox Nov 20, 2004 9:40 PM EDT |
You know what they say: Linux Today, gone tomorrow! |
| MESMERIC Dec 10, 2004 1:34 AM EDT |
LinuxPlanet is another
http://www.linuxplanet.com/ I was reading OSNews and people didn't get it why it was so wrong to have an anti-Linux add in a Linux website. Here is my protest: http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=9127&offset=31&rows=35 |
| gstrock Dec 10, 2004 6:16 AM EDT |
I read your post at osnews Mesmeric. "A breath of fresh air" and "rediscovering computers" is exactly how I felt when I installed linux on my home pc in the summer of 2000. Actually, it was more like a wave that passed through my body and I felt free. I've learned more about computers in the past 4 years thanks to Linux then I did in the previous 20 years of programming. - greg s. |
| tuxchick Dec 24, 2004 10:54 AM EDT |
??? What's wrong with LinuxPlanet? There are no egregious Microsoft ads there. I agree that the "Linux reference center" on LT is really awful and misleading; it's not clearly marked as an advertisement. Also keep in mind that editors have no say over ads. So whining at Brian proffitt doesn't do any good. Register your protests with the publisher, JupiterWeb. That is, if you really want to try do some good, and not just complain. |
| pigeonflight Dec 25, 2004 6:09 PM EDT |
I find it interesting. Effectively microsoft is funding the continued existence of a Linux site. So on the one hand I think it's great!.
On the other hand, someone new to Linux might get side tracked by the "get the facts" type propaganda. Funnily enough, I'm less worried about that. That said, I now visit linuxtoday.com much less than I used to (unlike others here, I haven't deleted it from my bookmarks though). /me ***braces himself***, prepares to be flamed |
| devnet Dec 28, 2004 8:20 AM EDT |
Unfortunately it is capitalism that points to these things...the almighty dollar. They have an ad company that they employ who develops relative ads for them. If Microsoft saturates the market with ads from its 'truth' campaign let em...I say they'll waste their money...imagine with me for a second if I advertised Dell computers on the Gateway site. People visiting the site would steer clear of those ads because they A) already own a Gateway computer or B) are interested in the Gateway computer specifically. Enticing them over is only a matter of price and performance...something which everyone knows Linux has bagged hands down. If anyone bites on these ads...they need their heads examined and Microsoft can have them. Just my opinion on that. |
| cubrewer Dec 29, 2004 3:22 PM EDT |
Here here! I am another dissatisfied LT reader. Honestly, I ignore ads and the rest of the crap that websites like LT jam onto the screen so thoroughly that I never realized that the "Linux Information Center" was an MS ad until Brian Profitt wrote his editorial. That was the last straw. But I'd been dissatisfied with LT for a long time. They apparently had certain restrictions about the stories that they would link to and their site was too busy with ads. Three cheers for Dave for starting LXer! |
| PaulFerris Dec 29, 2004 3:37 PM EDT |
Huzza! Good work Dave :) --Paul |
| dinotrac Dec 30, 2004 9:00 AM EDT |
Why Paul -- You're right again!!! What IS this world coming to? ;0) |
| PaulFerris Dec 30, 2004 9:03 AM EDT |
> Why Paul -- > You're right again!!! > What IS this world coming to? You're surprised about me being right?!?! I think you're (possibly) being sarcastic. --FeriCyde |
| devnet Jan 03, 2005 9:33 AM EDT |
eweek also has the same ads...I wouldn't mind it if I was in their microsoft section...but I was reading an open source article at the time. I guess if we are to boycott one, we ought to boycott the other eh? That makes three on my blacklist :P Devnet |
| dave Jan 03, 2005 9:47 AM EDT |
I'm not defending anyone, but you must be fair and mention that eWeek is different from Linux Today, in that it does not portray itself as a Linux website. Dave |
| PaulFerris Jan 03, 2005 6:36 PM EDT |
Perhaps this will put some positive light on the subject (warning, blatant AD for LXer.com): http://fericyde.blogspot.com/2005/01/i-can-feel-it-coming-ba... Cheers! --FeriCyde |
| devnet Jan 04, 2005 3:13 AM EDT |
Dave, i thought of that too...eweek doesn't do 'just' linux. Like I said though, I wouldn't have mind much had I been in a section other than open source on their site. But I realize the limitations they have of controlling what is displayed where and when. devnet |
| Koriel Jan 05, 2005 6:09 AM EDT |
Hey Paul I can't see the MS "Get the Facts" ad on your blog, as you are a linux related site i find it kind of disturbing that i can't get my regular dose of MS sponsorship, please rectify this poor state of affairs immediately :) |
| PaulFerris Jan 05, 2005 6:57 AM EDT |
Koriel, Just having DinoTrac's talkbacks on my articles is enough sponsorship as it is! Don't tempt me ;) --FeriCyde |
| feuerfuchs Jan 07, 2005 10:40 AM EDT |
I stopped my subscription to SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR because they sent that Microsoft/SCO Unix distro packaged with the magazine. I stopped my subscription to LINUX JOURNAL because I recieve 2+ issues with major problems (pages missing and so on). As a member of the Linux marketplace, I feel it is my function to vote against publications (online or otherwise) that cannot meet basic publication standards or promote products that are contrary to my interests. |
| TxtEdMacs Jan 08, 2005 11:05 AM EDT |
feuerfuchs: Linux Journal? Missing pages ripped out during shipment or incomplete copies? I am in, I think, my fourth year of subscribing without any problems*. Moreover, I question the need to include their name in a thread primarily about supposed Linux supporters taking cash from MS. I am a bit more sensitive regarding this topic too, because in the most recent issue of Linux Journal there is a letter quoting a source at Linux Today claiming that both Linux Magazine and Linux Journal carried print ads for Microsoft. The reply was a flat denial plus a statement of their principles. Moreover, Linux Journal did not even question the propriety of Linux Today site taking cash from MS - they simply stated it would be inconsistent for them [LJ] to do so. I am not questioning your right to demand quality service for your payment and if your copies came incomplete is not negated by perhaps 99% not having the problem. I would just advise you to separate the critique of the behaviour of Linux Today and System Administrator from a production and service problem you had with LJ. Regarding System Administrator (magazine/journal ?) I can see why they might have a reason to send out a copy of Unix (even though it was SCO), because they cover more OS's than simply Linux. Note they do not have "Linux" in their name. Indeed, it could be argued they are writing to attract even Windows admins! * Sorry, do not take my lack of problems as implying none exists. What really has bothered me on beta testing is to see bland comments saying they observered nothing of the problem I reported. These people are so out of it - they see no need to describe their system or the steps they took to repeat the testing. So, if I and probably most of LJ subscribers have been treated well, but that in itself cannot permit treating a small percentage badly. It is both your right and duty to demand better. |
| feuerfuchs Jan 11, 2005 10:53 AM EDT |
"feuerfuchs: Linux Journal? Missing pages ripped out during shipment or incomplete copies? I am in, I think, my fourth year of subscribing without any problems*. Moreover, I question the need to include their name in a thread primarily about supposed Linux supporters taking cash from MS." It was a manufacturing glitch that repeated itself. Regarding your second point: it's okay for me to broaden the analysis, after all this is a casual discussion. It may be technically okay for a publication to distribute different OS samples, but not on my dime and not products I don't wish to receive. So I remove my contribution from the publication without telling you you can't get these disks. How does that relate to Linuxtoday? I stop supporting them financially too. I advise you to consider context when reading*. In the newly diverged context of not giving publications financial support, I mentioned LJ who got my support withdrawn for poor production quality in a publication. My experience has been that feedbacking into publications does not improve the quality as much as withdrawing support for it. If you want a product to improve, stop buying it and things will change, especially when lot's of people do it. I didn't say anyone else should do the same. This thread has everything to do with quality of publication. Sorry to confuse you, but this usually happens when I break away from the herd from time to time. If you guys want to stop LT from feeding off of Microsoft, let them know why you no longer support their site and then stop supporting their site. Cheers and no offense intended. *A friendly way of saying, "Connect the dots." |
| DigitaLink Mar 22, 2005 8:02 PM EDT |
I don't agree with LT running the crapload of M$ ads they do, but look at it from an M$ perspective for a moment ... is there any point trying to sway people to M$ at a pro-M$ site? No, none at all. But if they can get a few linux wishy-washies to read their stuff and think it's factual, it's a big win for them. Maybe being an ad writer (for radio), I'm a bit logical on the subject, but when we're selling to a client, we tell 'em not to go for the people that are already sold on them ... they'll be in to give you their money anyway. The ones to advertise to are the ones who aren't currently considering your product. |
| hkwint Mar 23, 2005 2:26 AM EDT |
DigitalLink:
>The ones to advertise to are the ones who aren't currently considering your product. That's indeed true, but I'm afraid MS has one problem, which I shall outline in short: I have worked on the Migration DB (on the top of the LXer site) for a while, and I always come across a: -Story (actual content) which tells how a company / government saves big money using Linux, and in most of the stories, they also tell you it's easier using Linux instead of MS / Unix, -Add (next to the story), which says a guy from some 7-11 or so is saving money using Windows. Now, if I'm an naive client, am I going to believe the add or the story? It's the same as you making a radio show about the pro's of Linux, and then, in the add-block, MS saying you (the actual content) are wrong, and their add is right. What I mean to say is this: MS also throws its money away when they run an add next to a story telling you why you save money / are computing more secure using Linux. |
| PaulFerris Mar 23, 2005 3:51 AM EDT |
Just hypothetically speaking here, of course. Some site get a ton of hypothetical advertising from Vendor A. Hypothetically, Vendor A's products suck, but they have a lot of cash. The site is biased against Vendor A, but is willing to take cash from everybody. Possibly some bad news about Vendor A comes out. Theoretically, how the site "handles" this news is of utmost importance. Maybe they cover it, but instead of the usual treatment, it gets relegated to a linked article on a Saturday, when no one will read it, as opposed to a site editorial, in a timely fashion. In the context of this situation, Vendor A could be M$ or even Sun -- it doesn't matter who -- some company with lots of cash to spend on advertising is all that matters. Maybe an editor deletes some talkbacks that speak badly of experience with some of this vendors' products, or censors discussions that make the vendor look bad or question the persons' editorial slant. Maybe the editor gets special out-of-the-public-eye treatment by vendor A -- like being flown to Redmond for tea and crumpets. This makes the editor feel special. Suddenly, they are somebody *important*. Certainly, it makes him feel better than he or she does just doing their job, because the readers of a web site can be really harsh and critical. They can do things like point out factual errors in stories and call you names that make you cry. Being treated like someone special at a big companies headquarters takes all that pain away. Never mind that just doing your job should entail being factual and unbiased -- this is hypothetically, of course, somehow forgotten in the mix. Maybe discussions get swayed on the site to favor Vendor A, or make the community look like a bunch of loons (we are a bunch of loons, but we're organized loons, with a purpose -- people can tell the difference between that and say, some loud-mouthed script kiddie crowd). Possibly the vendor doesn't buy enough ads one month, so you make sure to really do the rake job when the cash is low. Possibly when people with morals inside the company question the ethical value of running things in such a manner, you might make sure those people find other places to work. Maybe you use words like "pragmatism" to describe your actions. You might take any excuse on page counts to describe why your latest hair-brained attempt at running the site is better than any ethical attempt to publish news. For example; God forbid someones search engine bot hits the site the day the editors slacked and publishing less news -- at times like this you might sit around like an idiot at an editors meeting saying "We published *less* news and the page counts went *up*". People that should know better at times like these might nod their heads like idiotic puppy dogs. Bonus points might be awarded for chewing out someone who has examined the page counts and found accidental traffic glitches. At hypothetical times like these, you might say things like "*NEVER* make excuses for high page counts" to those people. In hypothetical situations like these, the people with morals that are leaving (some voluntarily, some not-so-voluntarily) to go find more ethical work -- those people might use terms like "whores", "shills" and other words that, sadly, truly describe what the business has turned to (if it's gotten this bad, of course -- this is all an imaginary scenario). But in hypothetical situations like these, it's easy to deal with them. Tell them they are not true journalists, like you are. Maybe if they're really stupid, they will believe you. Better hope to hell that they're not hypothetically so ethical as to blow the whistle on everything you've done. Hypothetical questions abound in a scenario like that. What if one of these un-ethically challenged persons has been quietly collecting thoughts, evidence and the whole time acting like he or she really doesn't get what's going on. Maybe this person plays the stooge, and asks a lot of questions like they're confused: "Maybe you could just repeat that last sentense a little lounder, please?" Playing the "Columbo" questioning bit? Hypothetically speaking, that would be a real shame if that happened, now wouldn't it? Of course, this is all just supposition, so I'll stop talking about hypothetical situations. Bottom line: When someone pays for ads on any web site, and the budget is tight, the tendency and motivation to pander grows. You just need editors that have "ethical weaknesses" to fill out the bill. Of course, we know those people don't exist now, don't we? --FeriCyde |
You cannot post until you login.