Would an Ad-Sponsored OS/Desktop Work for OSS? 440
Gentu asks: "OSNews runs a quick blurb and poll on the idea of an ad-sponsored OS or desktop. What is interesting is that the answer is a bit hard, as embarrassing commercialism is against the freedom of Open Source Software, while on the other hand, it is a handy and easy way to get funding for your favorite open source project. What does Slashdot think about the issue? Which is more important: the software and how we can continue evolving it by any legal means, or the licensing and philosophy behind it?"
Umm... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Umm... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Umm... (Score:2)
ICQ has ads and I dont really complain about it.
Opera once had ads too, so what?
I think ads should be used to fund some open source development.
Why this won't work on an OSS project. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why this won't work on an OSS project. (Score:4, Insightful)
Release 0.2:
Release 0.3:
Release 0.4:
Modify license. Say hello to competing projects.
Re:Why this won't work on an OSS project. (Score:2, Funny)
It can't be Java cos they lowercase the very first letter, and it surely can't be C; my C is rusty but shouldn't it be more like
Re:Why this won't work on an OSS project. (Score:2)
"It can't be Java cos they lowercase the very first letter,"
This is true in the standard methods in the standard classes, but you can do what ever you want. This includes using 1337-naming, such as
DrawAdv3rt153m3n7(D35k70p);
Not entirely sure about special characters like @ etc, but the one I made up above would work just fine.
Re:Why this won't work on an OSS project. (Score:2)
Re:Who cares - Hash is now `legal`in the UK! (Score:2)
and hey, good for UK. they've always been on the progressive side of dealing with drug problems; encouraging stuff.
What do I think? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What do I think? (Score:2)
they saw that coming (Score:5, Insightful)
Entirely ethical, I should think. You gave me the code and the open-source license to modify it as I see fit, didn't you?
Re:they saw that coming (Score:2, Insightful)
Ethical...perhaps, perhaps not. If they're getting paid by ad-views/clicks then you're taking away potential income for the OSS project. You're screwing over a project that's trying to provide a free OS. It's definitely wrong in one way or another.
Re:What do I think? (Score:2, Insightful)
Might be alright.... (Score:2)
Being open source, people can do that.
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
What's wrong with how OSS software is being written now?
Lot's of people having itches, lots of people scratching them
Re: Why? (Score:2)
> What's wrong with how OSS software is being written now?
... the larger projects have sponsors or full time developers by companies that use the software, I don't really see a need for something like this.
> Lot's of people having itches, lots of people scratching them
That's probably the most sensible response so far.
But the lame idea does suggest other ideas. For example, we could write our applications to show splash screens that displayed the latest EFF legislation alert, stuff like that.
precedent ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: the humor impaired (Score:2)
Do I have to include smileys with everything I write?
I thought at least this one time it wouldn't be necessary. Now I can expect the moderators to mod it to troll status or something silly like that.
Oh, well, it fixes the ongoing problem with the karma cap.
Annoying and it wouldn't work... (Score:4, Insightful)
Once when I load? Isn't one of the biggest selling points of *nix in general the high uptime? Now windows...
And who do the (minimal) ad bucks go to anyway? A percentage depending on how many lines of code you contribute?
Complicated, ineffective and annoying. I vote no.
Re: Annoying and it wouldn't work... (Score:2)
> Once when I load? Isn't one of the biggest selling points of *nix in general the high uptime?
.
Heh heh heh. I log in exactly once per incident of {new system purchase, hardware upgrade, OS upgrade, hardware failure}. Right now, that's 125 days at home and 256 days at work. I'd see about two ads a year, unless they figured a way to force an ad back down the pipe whenever I do ssh remothost dosomething
Good luck selling the ads for enough to cover the costs of tracking down suckers to buy them.
Re:Annoying and it wouldn't work... (Score:2)
Re:Annoying and it wouldn't work... (Score:2)
Re:Annoying and it wouldn't work... (Score:2)
Yeah, but hey, MS don't need to do this, as they have a business model that works, as in they sell their OS.
Obligatory MC Reference (Score:5, Funny)
Computer Monitor: $350
Desktop PC: $1000
Linux OS: Free
Accidentally punching the monkey while trying to
switch windows: Priceless
-Sean
Mmmmm.......Pop-up ads (Score:3, Insightful)
Heh...this is especially great when a porn e-mail pops up it's own site, and as you desperately try to close it, 15 more porn windows pop up in succession behind it. Invariably, someone will walk up behind you or into you office/cubicle while you are trying to get rid of the porn they will NEVER believe you weren't looking at.
Interestingly enough...they are probably right because you probably did pause for a second and think about that link!
No, I don't like the idea of advertisers putting content on my computer. Regardless of what it can accomplish.
Someone has to say it... (Score:2)
Pity I have to use IE at work, although installing Mozilla keeps getting more and more tempting...
Ahh...yes (Score:2)
Re:Mmmmm.......Pop-up ads (Score:2)
> windows with advertisements...
Even if you are forced to use Outlook and IE at work or something, there is NO NEED to tolerate this. Despite all the anti-Outlook sentiment in these pages, it is easy to configure it to avoid problems.
Simply go into the security settings in Outlook and tell it to treat all incoming HTML mail as if it were in the "Restricted Sites" zone. And make sure that EVERYTHING (especially all scripting and java) is turned off in Restricted Sites. Boom, no more email popups (or cookies tracking when you read it, etc, etc).
It is also recommended that you install the latest security patches of course. You can go to the Windows Update [microsoft.com] site and it will automatically tell you what you need.
You don't even need to be running the latest Outlook or IE to do this, and you don't need to install the "Outlook Security Update" that cripples your ability to use certain attachments. It works back to Outlook 98 and IE 4.x.
Here is a good page on configuring Outlook [slipstick.com] to avoid malware.
P.S. While you are tweaking Outlook, take a look at SpamNet by CloudMark [cloudmark.com]. It was written up here at Slashdot [slashdot.org] a few weeks back. I've been using it since then and it does a great job of culling annoying emails for you.
Can you say AOLOS? (Score:2)
Screensaver Ads (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the comments I saw that was really cool was screensaver advertising.
I think most of us who are willing to use our processor time on things like SETI would be willing to let ads run on our system during screensaver time if it would bring any funding to these projects.
Additionally, if there were bonus incentives for actually looking at ads, etc., I would be on it like a heartbeat. I would support it even from my Windows boxes.
Re:Screensaver Ads (Score:2)
Re:Screensaver Ads (Score:2)
Re:Screensaver Ads (Score:2)
A few years a go, there was a company call PointCast (as opposed to "BroadCast") that did exactly that, but even better. You sign up for an account, filled out some information about your interests, and the screensaver ads were interlaced with content. Weather, sports , news, etc.
I thought it was pretty neat, but I had an old computer at the time and it tended to crash. O well. Cool concept, but I guess it didn't pay the bills.
Re:Screensaver Ads (Score:2, Funny)
does anyone remember the push content from 1995??
Not a panacea (Score:2)
I don't think anyone is suggesting that ads would pay for everything in some OSS project. That'd be crazy talk.
However, let's say that we build a screensaver app that allows for other processing, much like SETI or whatever and we say that the profits of this will support some OSS project. That'd be nice, right?
Plus, I see other people's desktops when I'm sitting in an office and see their screensavers. Ads placed there would reach me.
I know some corps are a pain, but I've worked places where the IT admin could make all the systems use the same screensaver and run SETI if he wanted. That's one of the reasons I'd suggest making it run on MS-Windows as well.
Re:Screensaver Ads (Score:2)
Ignoring the problems that have already been pointed out, this has an advantage over direct contributions. That is, the users don't have to part with their cash.
Although there are people who will donate money for something, they are the small minority. If you can find a way to allow users to help fund a project they like without getting them to part with money - then you're more likely to get a better take up.
didn't read the article... (Score:4, Insightful)
simple answer: NO.
a TV is not a business tool... we accept the commercial breaks because we are using the TV as a leisure device. the second ANYTHING gets in my way from doing my work, i get it off my computer.
i'm assuming an ad-supported OS would make that difficult.
Re:didn't read the article... (Score:2)
It's the software (Score:2)
That said, I doubt that the revenue model they seem to be hinting at in the story is really going to be sa significant source of income. But why not try it.
Big whoop (Score:2)
They'll have to engineer the OS to crash or reboot on a daily basis if they want to make any money, then. Even my Win2K desktop gets rebooted less than once a month, and that's (almost) always because I installed something essential to the system.
Miranda (Score:2)
i think open source users need to calm down a bit.
Wouldn't use it. (Score:2)
Why use something that pesters me with ads when I can get something that works plenty well enough, pester-free?
Also, how well have advertisement-based Web sites worked out?
And what's next, advertisement-based CDs? A chorus of "Army of One" between the verses of the latest ballet-band's shoveware "hit"?
It depends on the point of view (Score:2, Insightful)
As a developer it would depend on whether I really needed funding or not. If this development was being done purely as a hobby, I can't see that I'd need the funding. Of course the users would have to understand it is only a hobby.
If I was programming OSS without any suplimental income I would consider it.
The question is, would advertisors pay for a 5 or 10 second splash when a user first starts their desktop. Most people I know only boot the system once and it stays up and running 24/7 unless there's a crash. (Not very often in Linux) So, would the advertising really pay off for the advertisors?
What great publicity... (Score:2)
What great PR! You can bet that the
Ask (Score:4, Insightful)
If I knew that any of the open source apps I use needed money, I'd donate some money. It would only be fair, because they have all spared me from buying their commercial equivalents (which often exceed $100).
It worked for Kuro5hin. Rusty posted an article about the financial situation and about three days later he had raised $40,000. During the donation drive there was a meter on the top of every page that showed the progress towards $40,000. So, if you donated $50, you could see the meter inch forward maybe a pixel or two.
So, instead of putting "STUFF THE MONKEY'S EYES DOWN ITS THROAT AND EMBALM IT" ads on the splash screen, how about a prominent notice on the website and a K5-style meter?
Re:Ask (Score:2)
Hehehe. People laugh, but those ads got higher click thru ratios (often 4 times the industry norm) than most other banners.
But shit, thats funny
Re:Ask (Score:2)
If I knew that any of the open source apps I use
needed money, I'd donate some money.
I doubt if there are any Free Software developers who don't buy groceries and pay light bills. Pick an application you use a lot and send one of the authors a check.
Donations vs. Ads (Score:4, Interesting)
- Donation-supported media (public radio)
- Begging-for-donation-supported media (public TV w/ pledge drives)
- Sponsorship media (public radio, public TV)
- Ad-based media (standard TV, radio)
- Pay media (HBO)
Note that I would almost put public TV in the ad-based media, but their ads do not interrupt content, so I didn't. I put that in sponsorship media, which isn't exactly the same. Sponsorship is more of a charity-based act, and although some new customers may notice the company through the sponsorship, it might not result in greater profits.More importantly, the Internet is now facing a reality that commercial TV and radio faced in the 1940s: Ads wear out. After a while we become numb to ads, and don't pay much attention. The more annoying and rude they get, the less attention we pay. The difference is that TV, radio, and porn sites seek ways to make ads more annoying, and companies like Google try to sell ads based on useful information and non-obstructive delivery.
micropayments, code reuse (Score:3, Interesting)
So yes, I think donations make more sense than ads. However, there's a problem with asking people to write a check for $50 or something. It's a big chunk of cash, and experience has shown that only a vanishingly small percentage of users will pay shareware fees. One of the problems is that you really don't know how much you're going to use a piece of software until quite a lot of time has gone by. I've downloaded a lot of open-source stuff, but there are really only 5 or 10 open-source apps that I use on a regular basis every day. So micropayments might make more sense. I wouldn't mind paying one cent every time KDE fired up. The problem is we don't have a micropayment infrastructure that is widely used and practical.
Another problem I see with this kind of revenue-seeking is that you don't necessarily know whose software you're using, because one of the main advantages of open source is code reuse. For example, I'm using Mozilla right now. Well sure, it might make sense to give some money to the Mozilla developers. But Mozilla also uses XML heavily, and I'm sure it uses a library for that, maybe Expat. So doesn't the guy who wrote Expat deserve some of my money? When I click on the submit button to post this, Slashdot's server is going to run a Perl script. Shouldn't Larry Wall get some money? And what about any BSD boxes that my packets pass through in order to get to Slashdot -- shouldn't those BSD developers get some money? Oh yeah, and all of that software was compiled with gcc, so Stallman should get a cut. The whole thing just gets silly.
Seems like the apps are already ad-supported (Score:2, Insightful)
RealPlayer is barking my ear off with ads as I listen to the WRIF (radio station also supported by ads)
I've got AOL Instant Messenger open, there's an advertisment in my buddy list window.
KaZaA has an ad at the bottom of it....
What the hell...what's one more ad going to do?
Why is it assumed everything is online? (Score:2)
Ad supported anything on the net is a bad idea I think. Hell, the only ads I pay attention to any more are radio or TV spots, and then only if the seem exceptionally creative or funny. The product is inconsequencial, I buy what fits my needs, and if I need something I go looking for it. Never understood advertising.
Could be a good idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Could be a good idea (Score:3, Informative)
No point (Score:2)
Making it hard to remove the ads (e.g. obfuscating the code) would just be contrary to the point of having the source open, as would be saying "please don't remove the ads, we need the revenue." Look, Microsoft says, "please pay for our OS, we need the revenue." The difference gets pretty slim.
I can't imagine generating a lot of revenue from ads that show once to Linux or even more marginal OS users. So don't bother doing this--it distracts from the mission of making an open source OS and probably won't catch on with advertisers anyway.
-m
Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Many people are pointing out that OSS's beauty is that ad-supported software can be easily recompiled without the ads. Well, so what? This seems like an advantage of the approach to me. Those who wish to support a project through direct monetary means can still do so and recompile without the ads. Those who wish to support a project through ads (perhaps strapped-for-cash college students) can do so by leaving the module in the code. Those who wish to support the project by contributing code and not cash can strip the ads out. And those who wish to not support the project are not forced to do so.
Who is hurt by this? No one! And still it opens up a new revenue stream for OpenSource OSes and applications.
As anyone with common sense said NO WAY! (Score:2)
New, RedHat 9.... (Score:2)
Of course all o this is presuming that such an OS would have any sort of significant market penetration. Even if a decent solution can be pieced together that can be user friendly and do what they expect, lack of 100% windows compatibility would stand in the way. Lindows as seen by a 'common user' is a cheap knock off of windows that doesn't work as well, and windows only costs a little more. For the non-enthusiast the price tag is the quality benchmark, and the price difference is too small compared with the rest of the PC price to be a cause for concern. So the audience that things like Linux appeals to tends to be more technical and not an appealing audience, as ad companies know a significant portion of the audience will never see the ads. It works for common windows apps like Kazaa and DivX PRo, as the users are not highly technical on average. If you dig and experiment, you can get the free pro version and cripple Gain without bad side effects. This is no biggie because the proportion of users who are aware of this and willin gto go through the trouble of doing this is small compared to the mindset of linux users
Missing the point? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Missing the point? (Score:2)
Would an Ad-Sponsored OS/Desktop Work for OSS? (Score:2)
Would you enjoy being bludgeoned by an olive loaf?
Lavasoft (Score:2)
Just let me know when Ad-aware runs on it, would you?
The great thing about Open Source software (Score:2)
But, keep up the good work on finding ways to use technology to cram even more consumeristic crap down everyone's throats. We need more advertising in the world.
Sure it would! (Score:2)
Why, the owners of such websites are often able to purchase "luxury items" such as chalk and hamburgers with their nearly limitless income!
Would there also be an option to purchase an ad-free ad-based desktop (that still has a few ads in it, "for fun") for an additional $20 per year? Would that help bump LNUX shares up a little?
- A.P.
bite the ideology that feeds you (Score:2)
You might as well try and sell an MS desktop that popups a dialog every few minutes that screams, "Capitalism sucks!" Most office workers would rather drop dead than deal with the inherent irony of such a 'feature' every few seconds.
Not on my watch... (Score:2)
This is a bad idea for sure.
More over, the people who currently run OSS are geeks who know better than trust the ads they watch everyday.
Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
"Free as in ad-sponsored"
It could work if done correctly. (Score:2)
They want something that works. I like Opera, I want it free, there's a funky comic up there right now.
If I can get Opera for free, and they can get enough money off that add I sometimes click to support future development, then I say go for it.
How do we know companies won't start paying distro's (like RedHat) for desktop placement rights? Perfect source of income for the distro, and can be clicked or removed by the end user.
Does anyone still see them? (Score:2)
I can't see why advertisers continue to pay for this stuff. The only click throughs they get are when I'm actively supporting the site I'm visiting. When I'm actually going to buy something, I use the consolidated shopping comparison sites, so I can see whgat a good deal is. Then I buy locally from vendors that will match the price. I get instant gratification, and usually a 2 week exchange period for defects.
So the short answer is - sure! Go ahead and put ads on the desktop. Don't suck too much resource though. If it keeps Open Source running, I have no problem with it.
/. can answer this for themselves (Score:2)
This is an easy scenario to figure out. On the day that
Freedom (Score:2)
I am free to use or to not us such an OS.
If it is Free Software, I am free to remove such "features" from the OS.
I don't see the issue.
Just like the add driven Free Internet Service. (Score:2)
The Number one open source project would be the one to prevent/block/hide the adds.
What does slashdot think? (Score:2)
Slashdot thinks its a fantastic idea, and that it should be implemented using SourceForge.
SourceForge: Its just like Star Wars, except its a change control system.
Oh wait, you mean the READERS of slashdot. We think it would be pretty shitty. We also think that it would take approximately 45 seconds after release for someone to edit out the advertisements, thank God for the GPL.
It exists (Score:2)
New OSS slogan (Score:2)
Free as in beer, free as in speech, free as in money - ASK ME HOW!
A Better Question (Score:4, Interesting)
After all, I can honestly say I enjoy many commercials on the TV. When it comes to banner ads and popups I'm more likely to have a negative opinion of the site/application and the sponsoring company.
Re:A Better Question (Score:2)
I would say absolutly, and I agree with you compleatly. The legitimate ad industry has all but abandoned the Internet, leaving it filled with so many fly-by-night scams on one side and in your face annoyances on the other that the only time they have a real impact is when the user gets so annoyed he or she goes out of their way to get rid of them.
What's worse is, so many websites already are stuck in a business model that relies exclusivly on these ads (that nobody looks at anymore) as their only form of income.
I'd like to hope OSS does'nt go down that same path, for it's own sake.
Q: Would an Ad-Sponsored OS/Desktop Work for OSS? (Score:2)
While my snappy answer to stupid questions usually ends here with a "Next question", I feel that this time it is necessary to elaborate.
There are two major reasons I don't ever see this working:
- It's the freedom, dummy
- It's for fun, stupid
So, in conclusion, I'd have to say that this won't work, and I'm glad it won't. One of the biggest reasons I switched to Linux early on was that I wasn't inundated with advertising every time I started it up.The poster asks
and I'd have to answer that while many will disagree, it's the licensing and philosophy. It used to be that I would use Linux because it was better. To a certain degree, I still do. But even if it wasn't better, I would have switched long ago because it gives me something no other operating system can: freedom. This may seem very anti-pragmatic, but I don't think it is. I believe that truly free software is the only way to get truly great software that truly serves the user's needs. What could be more pragmatic than that?Let's face it: Linus made Linux because he wanted to, and he's continued working on it because he enjoys it. This could be said about many pieces of open source software. Every person may have his or her price, but would you rather have something that someone hated making but were paid gobs of money to make, or something that someone made as a labor of love and were paid nothing for it? Again, countering the "well that's all very idealistic, but . . . " naysayers, I would have to say that the most excellent products of human effort have been ones that were not solely inspired by monetary gains.
What portion of the money... (Score:2)
Face it, adware companies are sleeziest, slimiest, most unscrupulous charlatans the world has ever been widely exposed to. The internet has given these deceivers the "power" to reach millions.
Slashdot has run dozens of stories, or well, at least linked to dozens of stories about these crooks. This one from last week [slashdot.org] was one of the best examples of what types of people are behind adware and spyware, but there have been many [slashdot.org], many [slashdot.org], many [slashdot.org] others recently, and they go back for years.
Even if an adware "sponsorship" were run by a more "honest" company, it's hard to imagine they could resist the pressure to spend the funds on their own well-intentioned efforts. But given the sorry state of adware and spyware on windoze-based shareware and the dismal glimpses into the operations behind these adware services, it's hard to believe these would be any well-meaning intentions at all when it comes to actually handling the money.
PtP software (Score:2)
The point is, as soon as I start seeing ads get built into a tool, application, or whatever, I lose interest. And as has been pointed out, it's easy enough to strip out the ads code anyway.
Maybe an ads for the precompiled versions, and the availablility of a paid for version without the ads? I suppose it's more likely to work for some people.
Another idea is to have a switch for configure like so: that triggers a blurb at the bottom of the configure and the make saying that I'm breaking their hearts. At least then it's a reminder and will probably prevent a whole add-striping patch project..
Use a carrot, not a stick. (Score:2)
Inject the advertiser/supporter's name in a small, readable watermark on a default background. Include an application with some actual usable value with the software that makes people want to keep it around. Like a CNN news ticker integrated into the desktop in a nice and unobtrusive manner. Or a weather map, or a schedule listing. If the company is less media oriented, sponsor a distribution. It might cost a little more, but the results would be more worthwhile, and people won't be recompiling to kill anything.
Do something like iTools...GenTools? (Score:2)
Maybe a bunch of enterprising OS/Desktop folks should sell versions of their software along with useful web/net services.
Take, for example, Gentoo. They could create a Gentoo counterpart of Apple's iTools called "GenTools". GenTools would offer maybe 30MB of network storage for backup (sort of like iDisk), and they would offer web hosting that could integrate in with Mozilla (it shouldn't be too hard to do with the rendering engine + XUL) or if the target is developers (which I think Gentoo is gunning for, from what little I know about the distro) they could offer 100M of CVS storage space. And of course, they could do the whole RedHat/Ximian thing like up2date/red carpet and sell software updating services.
The worst thing about ads is not that they annoy the user but that they show such a lack of creative thinking. Be less Juno and more TiVO.
hahahHAHAHAHahaha. (Score:2)
Donations (Score:3, Insightful)
I really don't think advertisements are appropriate, nor would they be effective. Advertising embedded in an Open Source project would obviously be easily removed, which would, I think, make advertisers a little wary of paying for that space. The most likely result would be a fork of the project, with the non-ad fork grabbing most of the users and the ad-based one slowly whithering away.
More than that, though, I think it's disrespectful to the users. The entire Open Source community is based on a web of trust and respect. The developers respect the users by providing them with high quality software at minimal cost, and the users trust the developers to not try to milk them.. Personally, I put advertising in OSS in the same sleazy boat as Ransom Love's per-seat licensing and all the BS Lindows is currently pulling.
Sure, do the ad thing, then abuse the f-- system! (Score:2)
This won't work; no demand for ad space (Score:2)
Maybe it's not so much a shortage of advertising customers as it is an oversupplied commodity market for the space. I see no shortage of advertising on the web, but everyone complains about the lack of money they get from banner ads. Evidently the banner ad companies offered less and less money, looking for the price point where the supply became a problem. The website owners accepted less and less money until they started going out of business. However the continuous expansion of the Internet means a never-ending supply of people who will sell space for whatever they can get, which is now approaching $0.
Now we have ads that are bigger than ever, as well as the highly annoying pop-ups, pop-unders, and "Shoshkeles". Not that I see many of them, of course. [proxomitron.org]
I see no reason why an ad-supported desktop or other software product would fare any better than the ad-supported websites.
Make payment easier (Score:2)
This sort of effort would be better invested in making payment easier. I'm not in the US (rules out direct transfer, paypal etc) and I don't have a credit card (because I don't want credit. I spend money I have already). Give me a way to send you money!
When you send me ads, you're telling me to fuck off. They're annoying, and they subtract from my most valuable resources when sitting in front of my computer (time, and screen real estate).
Commercialism is not anti-open-source (Score:2)
I think the question shows a fundamental misunderstanding by asking us to say whether we think the philosophy is more important or the quality of the software and by making the statement "as embarrassing commercialism is against the freedom of Open Source Software." Open source is not about eliminating commercialism or business. Despite comments often made to the contrary, most open source/free software advocates are not Communist, anti-capitalist, or anti-business. Please see also RMS's comments about how commercial and free software are not mutually exclusive [gnu.org] and selling free software [gnu.org].
Advertising in open source/free software would not be a sacrifice of principle. That said, I seriously doubt it would help the quality of the software, either.
Comment (Score:2)
{lots of ad code here)
*/
Open source and adware are inherently incompatible.
I think... (Score:3, Insightful)
No! (Score:2)
Screw advertisers. If I wanted to buy their shit I'd buy it already.
Branding probably better (Score:2)
Branding an Open Source OS will probably work.
I've seen AOL clients branded by Walmart[1].
An Open Source OS company could offer large chains a branded OS - not necessarily annoying blinking ads, but just the corporate logo-of-choice branding on things like the boot-up screen, the desktop, the title bars of browsers, etc. In return for this branding, if the company could get customer support contracts from the users. This creates a possibility of profitability for the OS company.
Let's take Mandrake, for example, which is very end-user newbie oriented. They have a graphical boot-up screen.
This would provide an opportunity for a large retail chain, say Target, to gain screen space. Instead of the boot-up screen showing all the scary things like "loading SSH [ok]", it could show the Target Logo as well as scroll specials offered on the web-site as the machine boots. These specials could even be downloaded as a back-end process during the previous session so each boot-up would show an updated catalogue of specials, getting the user interested for each boot-up. This service could be offered to the corporation thus generating revenue from Target for keeping the backend of such a system running.
To continue the branding, have Target appear in the title-bar and make it the home-page of the default browser - Mozilla on the O.S. Once again, the OS company could bill Target for the maintenance of the Linux-specific area of the home-page - so that it corresponds with specials seen during the boot-up process.
Any other ideas?
[1]AOL 7.0 brought to you by Wal-Mart in the title bar
I answered Yes (Score:2)
Counterproposal (Score:2)
1.You give me 100 IOU's for my work on a project of yours.
2.I give 50 IOU's of the 100 that I earned towards someone who will spend time helping me to get XFree86 to install and work easily on xxx laptop.
3.Some company, e.g. SuSE, gives me 20 IOU's so I'll write up some documentation on getting their distro to work on xxx laptop.
etc etc.
The point would be that this would be a). as legally binding as the GPL and b). would involve no cash.
I'm sure there would be a lot of legal wrangles to work out, but there is a sort of similar system in use here in Switzerland (indeed some of my salary is paid out in this way). It provides a good method of barter in lieu of traditional cash, which is always at the whim of the stock market and is much , much more restistant to fat, greedy corporate bosses trying to fuck you over.
A few reasons as to why not. (Score:2)
1) As many people have pointed out, you can always comment the ad scripts out of the OS, and recompile.
2) Very limited advertising, the same reason web sites paid with ads don't work (unless they're loaded with ads). In broadcast radio and TV (which are free to the user), each radio and tv station is located in a particular area and the reach a known audience. Knowing your audience is near by and capabe of buying a product from you is what intises advertisers to by spots on radio and TV. But when you do something like a web site, a satelte radio or an ad run OS, your market is no longer ridgedly difinned. Suddenly, your only advertisers are those that sell a generaly universal product. For example, here in upstate NY, the radio is often filled with ads in the winter for various ice melts. Those advertisers will to pay to advertise however, if they don't knw for certain that the ad is reaching the desired people (who in Florida wants ice melt?)
3) Advertisements are annoying. Let's face it. We all hate ads. We accept them as a nessesary evil for broadcast, and even for te web. But hw many of us actuly pay attention? Most people flip channels when ads come on, or change stations. Most of us when we go to a page have our mouses trained on the exact spot the ad window will appear so that we can close is without it loading. No one likes ads and no one wants to be bomarded with them when they're using their computer.
Re:Remember Free ISPs (Score:2)
Now, what do you see at the bottom of the latest version? Ads...
*sigh*
Ad-Sponsored + OSS = Easily Modified (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only does OSS make this possible, it encourages it.
Re:no it wouldn't (Score:4, Interesting)
given that, this might be an easy way to support your favorite OSS projects. an interesting idea at least.
Re:No (Score:2)
Re:Why the sensationalism? (Score:2)