[SLE] Alternative Web Browser
Hello folks I have lotsa probz with netscape. Frequently it crashes or freezes and i can see only white patches on the screen. And top tells me it is using 98% cpu and it doesn't decrease even after 5 minutes. I've tryed givng all kinds of signals( not #9, #15 takes care of it) but the only thing that happens is that entire netscape goes down..all the windows everything. I'm fed up with it and i wanna know if there is a good alternative browser Thanx in advance Cheedu -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
* omicron@pes.edu
I have lotsa probz with netscape. [...] I'm fed up with it and i wanna know if there is a good alternative browser
If you must turn from your friend so fast... here are some Good Alternative Browsers: 1) w3m -- you have to like text, but it's the best text-based web browser IMHO. (I use both this and Netscape) 2) links -- another good text-based browser. (both call in another program (like zgv, or XV) to display images) 3) Konqueror (kfm) from KDE -- I've only used the version on 6.2 (which had some annoying problems), and it was a nice lightweight browser with a clean interface. Something to look at in the future. 4) Mozilla -- supposedly getting really good. Last I checked it was too memory intensive for my computer. (I don't have enought hard disk space to compile my own either) If you try them and want to use Netscape again, here is a bit of fairly useless advice on how to make it play nice: 1) Disable Java! 2) Now disable javascript. 2) Get Junkbuster. (less bandwidth and image rendering) 3) Get a chaching proxy and turn off the disk caching in Netscape. (Examples are Squid and WWWOFFLE) 4) Download the Netscape without mail and news (there are much better mail and news clients IMNSHO, like mutt and slrn). This seems to be what helped me the most. (it is much smaller in size -- less things to break) You could also customize Netscape a bit. With this small python script, I make the 'search' button go to www.google.com (Google actually explained how to do this on their site), and I get rid of the stupid 'shopping' button: #!/usr/bin/env python import os home = os.environ['HOME'] prefs = open(home+'/.netscape/preferences.js', 'a') prefs.write("config(\"internal_url.net_search.url\",\ \"http://www.google.com\");") # get rid of stupid shopping button prefs.write("user_pref(\"browser.chrome.disableMyShopping\", true);") prefs.flush() prefs.close() os.system('/opt/netscape/netscape &') # see: about:config for useful info # see: http://developer.netscape.com/docs/manuals/deploymt/jsprefs.htm david. -- Who knows if the sky filled with pretty people? -- e.e.cummings in a blender -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
3) Konqueror (kfm) from KDE -- I've only used the version on 6.2 (which had some annoying problems), and it was a nice lightweight browser with a clean interface. Something to look at in the future.
You might checkout the new Konqueror, which replaces KFM/Konqueror (confusing sounding). It supports NSPlugins, Java, JavaScript, CSS 1 and 2, and many other nice features (probably would get rid of the problems you ran into)! It's part of KDE2-beta (www.kde.org).
1) Disable Java! 2) Now disable javascript. 2) Get Junkbuster. (less bandwidth and image rendering)
<rant> I have to disagree with you whole heartedly on this one. Junkbuster hides ads, and ads are the price of free information. If you disable ads, you are stealing my and every other ad-based web site's content. If everyone disabled ads, there would be a lot less free information on the web. It's just not fair to the people working hard to bring you the content you enjoy. </rant> Sorry about that, I just had to rant a bit. I've ranted on the DHS Systalk & KDE lists about this too... 8-) -Tim ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Butler Universal Networks Information Tech. Consultant Christian Web Services Since 1996 ICQ #12495932 AIM: Uninettm An Authorized IPSwitch Reseller tbutler@uninetsolutions.com http://www.uninetsolutions.com ===================== "Solutions that Work" ===================== -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
* Timothy R. Butler
2) Get Junkbuster. (less bandwidth and image rendering)
<rant> I have to disagree with you whole heartedly on this one. Junkbuster hides ads, and ads are the price of free information. If you disable ads, you are stealing my and every other ad-based web site's content. If everyone disabled ads, there would be a lot less free information on the web. It's just not fair to the people working hard to bring you the content you enjoy.
I have my reasons... * I never click on ads. That leaves the profit made from loading an image. * Ads are distracting. I hate animated gifs, especially when trying to read a text. Why should I have to be distracted by an animated gif of something that I am uninterested in when I can replace it with a white box? * Sites with advertisements do not explicitly request that you view the ads. Perhaps if they did, I would just leave the site. Also, this would justify the strange claim that I am stealing. * An ad at the top of a page will (often) load completely *before* the content is displayed. This is stealing time from me. * I use w3m 50% of my web time. It cannot display inline images. Would you tell me to dutifully load every ad into an image viewer before being entitled to view your site? Would I be stealing if I didn't? Ads are not for everyone.
</rant>
I should mention that there was a discussion on advogato which discussed all of these points from both perspectives: http://www.advogato.com/article/86.html david. -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
David,
* I never click on ads. That leaves the profit made from loading an image.
You forget that the most effective type of ads for the content providers (like myself) are the ones called "CPM" campaigns. These are pay-per-impression - not pay-per-click. So, you see, it really does pay - even if you don't click.
* Ads are distracting. I hate animated gifs, especially when trying to read a text. Why should I have to be distracted by an animated gif of something that I am uninterested in when I can replace it with a white box?
Because I need to eat dinner, and if I have to make money somewhere else - I won't have time to develop content.
* Sites with advertisements do not explicitly request that you view the ads. Perhaps if they did, I would just leave the site. Also, this would justify the strange claim that I am stealing.
This is like a debate currently going on over at the KDE-General list. The Debian people claim the KDE developers must specifically state they agree to let their GPL'ed code get linked to the QPL'ed QT. Even though KDE can't work without QT, the Debian project claims this isn't enough proof. Same goes for ads. If web-developers didn't want you to view the ads - why would they be there?
* An ad at the top of a page will (often) load completely *before* the content is displayed. This is stealing time from me.
But it's up to you to spend that time waiting. If it isn't worth it to you, stick to organizations like the GNU Project or other non-profit pages. I pay for bandwidth (on my site), I spend many hours of hard work developing, etc. Why do I want to loose money? If you don't wanna pay, don't come at all. Really, just think about it. Wouldn't it be faster to walk out of the grocery store without paying? Sure, but where are the employees who stock the shelves for you going to make money to eat? Same applies in the new economy. Yes there are hobbist and organizational sites, but the rest require profit.
* I use w3m 50% of my web time. It cannot display inline images. Would you tell me to dutifully load every ad into an image viewer before being entitled to view your site? Would I be stealing if I didn't?
No, then you just can't see them. You also aren't wasting my bandwidth downloading the rest of the images on my site. It's when you _are_ using my bandwidth, you _are_ using my free technical support, etc. Why shouldn't I use a little of _your_ time? My $0.02, that I wouldn't have if no one viewed my ad banners... -Tim ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Butler Universal Networks Information Tech. Consultant Christian Web Services Since 1996 ICQ #12495932 AIM: Uninettm An Authorized IPSwitch Reseller tbutler@uninetsolutions.com http://www.uninetsolutions.com ===================== "Solutions that Work" =====================
Ads are not for everyone.
</rant>
I should mention that there was a discussion on advogato which discussed all of these points from both perspectives:
http://www.advogato.com/article/86.html
david.
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com
Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
This is my last reply to this thread, because this is a bit ot.
* Timothy R. Butler
These are pay-per-impression - not pay-per-click. So, you see, it really does pay - even if you don't click.
Then I should get my proxy to download all the banners to /dev/null and it will seem like I saw them.
* Sites with advertisements do not explicitly request that you view the ads. Perhaps if they did, I would just leave the site. Also, this would justify the strange claim that I am stealing.
This is like a debate currently going on over at the KDE-General list. The Debian people claim the KDE developers must specifically state they agree to let their GPL'ed code get linked to the QPL'ed QT. Even though KDE can't work without QT, the Debian project claims this isn't enough proof. Same goes for ads. If web-developers didn't want you to view the ads - why would they be there?
Well, of Course they want you to view the ads; the question is, is it stealing just because I do not do what they desire? SuSE is a company. Therefore they *want* you to by the CDs. Still you can download the iso image, if you go to the extra trouble. You do what is contrary to their main desire, but you can do it. It is not stealing. I can go to an extra length to 'clarify' my web browsing experience, because you didn't forbid it.
* An ad at the top of a page will (often) load completely *before* the content is displayed. This is stealing time from me.
But it's up to you to spend that time waiting. If it isn't worth it to you, stick to organizations like the GNU Project or other non-profit pages. I pay for bandwidth (on my site), I spend many hours of hard work developing, etc. Why do I want to loose money? If you don't wanna pay, don't come at all.
My, if you conveyed these opinions on your website, I'll bet nobody would come ;-) You have no intention of considering anything but those very ugly defacements of the internet. Probably, most people don't filter ads. But! If they do (or when they do), then this is a sign to the ad-vendors that we don't need no steenkin' ads. Call it my vote. You own your website. If you want to, you can request on your page that anybody using ad filtering software either disable it or leave. But I personally don't think that there is a stronger argument for it than that you own the copyright, so can stipulate such rules.
Really, just think about it. Wouldn't it be faster to walk out of the grocery store without paying? Sure, but where are the employees who stock the shelves for you going to make money to eat?
The savings in time of walking out of the store without paying is grossly overshadowed by the fact that you are shoplifting. Doing that is illegal. It is explicitly forbidden with laws and warnings on the wall. There are punishtments in store.
* I use w3m 50% of my web time. It cannot display inline images. Would you tell me to dutifully load every ad into an image viewer before being entitled to view your site? Would I be stealing if I didn't?
No, then you just can't see them. You also aren't wasting my bandwidth downloading the rest of the images on my site. It's when you _are_ using my bandwidth, you _are_ using my free technical support, etc. Why shouldn't I use a little of _your_ time?
Ah, so I can just turn off images completely, and then I'm not stealing? david, who feels the heat. -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
This is my last reply to this thread, because this is a bit ot.
Sorry to hear that - it's good for my debating skills. <g>
Well, of Course they want you to view the ads; the question is, is it stealing just because I do not do what they desire? SuSE is a company. Therefore they *want* you to by the CDs. Still you can download the iso image, if you go to the extra trouble. You do what is contrary to their main desire, but you can do it. It is not stealing. I can go to an extra length to 'clarify' my web browsing experience, because you didn't forbid it.
It is different once again though. SuSE purposely provides an option to download the CD's. I don't provide the option to remove that ads. There are two real types of laws and regulations - assumed and stated. It should be assumed that the pages "price tag" is the adverts.
My, if you conveyed these opinions on your website, I'll bet nobody would come ;-) You have no intention of considering anything but those very ugly defacements of the internet. Probably, most people don't filter ads. But! If they do (or when they do), then this is a sign to the ad-vendors that we don't need no steenkin' ads. Call it my vote.
What really nice sites exisit that are not (1) funded by ads, (2) funded by purchases, or (3) personal "hobby" sites? Slashdot? Ads. Freshmeat? Ads. Linux.com? Ads. Linuxapps.com? Ads. Granted there are the KDE.org's of the world, but I mentioned it in the blanket "organizational web sites" statement. Anyway, RMS's site ain't so bad.
You own your website. If you want to, you can request on your page that anybody using ad filtering software either disable it or leave. But I personally don't think that there is a stronger argument for it than that you own the copyright, so can stipulate such rules.
(1) Many would ignore it, or not read it. (2) It would be stating the obvious in an unfriendly way. When I go to the store, I hate seeing all of those "no shoplifting" signs - it looks unfriendly. Same goes for web site rules.
The savings in time of walking out of the store without paying is grossly overshadowed by the fact that you are shoplifting. Doing that is illegal. It is explicitly forbidden with laws and warnings on the wall. There are punishtments in store.
And yet you feel web designers day-jobs are done purely out of the goodness of our hearts? How'd you like it if I didn't pay for what ever your company produced? It wouldn't make ya happy would it?
Ah, so I can just turn off images completely, and then I'm not stealing?
I guess that would be good enough - at least you aren't enjoying all the web has to offer then. I'm just saying I could produce proprietary scripts, and for instance, the one I'm about to release could retail for $999-$2,000 per license. However, I'm choosing to GPL it because I can make money off of ads on my site. That way I benifit, support the open source community, and you benifit because it's free. It's a lot better than what Eudora or GoZilla! did, I'm not forcing you to view ads every time you use the software - just when you first download it. I keep making "friendly nemisises," perhaps you are another one. ;-) Have a great day. -Tim ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Butler Universal Networks Information Tech. Consultant Christian Web Services Since 1996 ICQ #12495932 AIM: Uninettm An Authorized IPSwitch Reseller tbutler@uninetsolutions.com http://www.uninetsolutions.com ===================== "Solutions that Work" ===================== -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
<rant> I have to disagree with you whole heartedly on this one. Junkbuster hides ads, and ads are the price of free information. If you disable ads, you are stealing my and every other ad-based web site's content. If everyone disabled ads, there would be a lot less free information on the web. It's just not fair to the people working hard to bring you the content you enjoy.
</rant>
If the ads go unnoticed by me even when they show up on a page why should I not filter ads? And aren't you also implying that free (as in free beer) software can only be supported by ads? If that's the case I'd rather pay for software (or web information if I truly need it) than use an app such as Gozilla! or the new, free versions of Eudora. Anyway, I get much more useful information from usenet than from the web. Greg -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
Hi Greg,
If the ads go unnoticed by me even when they show up on a page why should I not filter ads? And aren't you also implying that free (as in free beer) software can only be supported by ads? If that's the case I'd rather pay for software (or web information if I truly need it) than use an app such as Gozilla! or the new, free versions of Eudora.
I didn't imply that free software must be supported by ads, I detest software with ads in them. What I think is fair is that the site you have to visit to get the program have some ads on it. Believe it or not, I make a nice amount from visitors downloading my open source programs just by loading the web pages with ads on them. I don't have any ads in the programs, but by the visitors being courteous enough to let my ads load (even if they don't view them), we both benefit. When I spend hours and hours of _my_ precious time creating a program for everyone to enjoy, why is it so hard to spend just a few extra seconds of _your_ time letting my ads load (and ignoring them). I get $.01 on many of the ads displayed even if you don't pay attention to them. It should be a token of gratitude for the people who do the work that you enjoy. -Tim ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Butler Universal Networks Information Tech. Consultant Christian Web Services Since 1996 ICQ #12495932 AIM: Uninettm An Authorized IPSwitch Reseller tbutler@uninetsolutions.com http://www.uninetsolutions.com ===================== "Solutions that Work" =====================
Anyway, I get much more useful information from usenet than from the web.
Greg
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com
Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
Tim, the world doesn't all work like your part of it. In England, and most of Europe, we have to pay for our telephone calls. We also don't have high bandwidth connections for the most part - we tend to use 34K or 56K modems. Most pages that carry banner ads tend to pack the ads on, and each one is often an animated GIF which takes several seconds to download. Seriously, downloading all the banner ads on a few pages of a news site packed with them will cost me an appreciable amount of money: not 0.1p, but 2 or 3p. Over a period of a few weeks that represents a couple of beers. WWWoffle is written by an Englishman. Scratch an itch and all that... Had banner ad users limited the number of ads they use, and kept the sizes down so they were much less offensive to download, maybe people wouldn't be so hostile to them. Bit late now. Ad blockers are part of the 'net, and people such as yourself are going to have to find a new business model. I can see it happening: content will only be sent by the server if the ads are sent too. Hmmm. I feel an Apache module coming on... ;-) "Timothy R. Butler" wrote:
Hi Greg,
If the ads go unnoticed by me even when they show up on a page why should I not filter ads? And aren't you also implying that free (as in free beer) software can only be supported by ads? If that's the case I'd rather pay for software (or web information if I truly need it) than use an app such as Gozilla! or the new, free versions of Eudora.
I didn't imply that free software must be supported by ads, I detest software with ads in them. What I think is fair is that the site you have to visit to get the program have some ads on it. Believe it or not, I make a nice amount from visitors downloading my open source programs just by loading the web pages with ads on them. I don't have any ads in the programs, but by the visitors being courteous enough to let my ads load (even if they don't view them), we both benefit. When I spend hours and hours of _my_ precious time creating a program for everyone to enjoy, why is it so hard to spend just a few extra seconds of _your_ time letting my ads load (and ignoring them). I get $.01 on many of the ads displayed even if you don't pay attention to them. It should be a token of gratitude for the people who do the work that you enjoy.
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
Derek, You read my mind! :-) I'm planning some kind of script to block "non-paying" customers. I understand your situation, we have unlimited access, but the lines are so bad in suburbia that I can only get 28.8. So I live with slow low-bandwidth connections. I can't get DSL or Cable access, and DirecPC seems rather stupid. So I know how you feel about speed. As to cost, I see your point also. However, if I go over _my_ bandwidth allotment at my web host it'll cost me 12 bucks for every gig (so if I go one meg over, I still pay $12). I think the thing that irks me, is that I only have two ad banners on each page (a 480x60 and a 120x90), and I screen all of them to make sure they are tasteful. I offer free technical support, and offer my businesses', not my personal, scripts under open source licenses. If ads aren't shown, I have to make money somehow, just like everyone else. So, either way someone looses - one way it's the giver, one the taker. Seems to me it should be the one benefiting (the taker), not the other way around. I think the thing surfers need to decide is whether they'd rather pay for the content with real cash or with ad banners. A few cents (isn't that what the pence exchange rate is?) isn't as bad as $200 or $300 (which is what I'd charge for one of my upcoming scripts). I mean, of course, there will always be the KDE Project, and other projects that get code and monetary donations, but until some big corporation donates some money and servers my way, I have to make it other ways. Perhaps the best solution would be an ad blocker that blocked Link Exchange and referral program ads. Link Exchange doesn't pay webmasters, and referrals are Cost-per-click. The ones that shouldn't be blocked, IMO, are the cost-per-impression campaigns that keep my business, along with great sites like Slashdot afloat. Like I said though, I see how it can be annoying if bandwidth (on the client side) costs money, people should just remember that it costs the web site bandwidth money too. -Tim ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Butler Universal Networks Information Tech. Consultant Christian Web Services Since 1996 ICQ #12495932 AIM: Uninettm An Authorized IPSwitch Reseller tbutler@uninetsolutions.com http://www.uninetsolutions.com ===================== "Solutions that Work" =====================
-----Original Message----- From: fountai@hursley.ibm.com [mailto:fountai@hursley.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 3:25 AM To: SuSE English Subject: Re: [SLE] Re: Alternative Web Browser
Tim, the world doesn't all work like your part of it. In England, and most of Europe, we have to pay for our telephone calls. We also don't have high bandwidth connections for the most part - we tend to use 34K or 56K modems. Most pages that carry banner ads tend to pack the ads on, and each one is often an animated GIF which takes several seconds to download. Seriously, downloading all the banner ads on a few pages of a news site packed with them will cost me an appreciable amount of money: not 0.1p, but 2 or 3p. Over a period of a few weeks that represents a couple of beers. WWWoffle is written by an Englishman. Scratch an itch and all that...
Had banner ad users limited the number of ads they use, and kept the sizes down so they were much less offensive to download, maybe people wouldn't be so hostile to them. Bit late now. Ad blockers are part of the 'net, and people such as yourself are going to have to find a new business model.
I can see it happening: content will only be sent by the server if the ads are sent too. Hmmm. I feel an Apache module coming on... ;-)
"Timothy R. Butler" wrote:
Hi Greg,
If the ads go unnoticed by me even when they show up on a
I not filter ads? And aren't you also implying that free (as in free beer) software can only be supported by ads? If that's the case I'd rather pay for software (or web information if I truly need it) than use an app such as Gozilla! or the new, free versions of Eudora.
I didn't imply that free software must be supported by ads, I detest software with ads in them. What I think is fair is that the site you have to visit to get the program have some ads on it. Believe it or not, I make a nice amount from visitors downloading my open source programs just by loading the web pages with ads on them. I don't have any ads in the programs, but by the visitors being courteous enough to let my ads load (even if they don't view them), we both benefit. When I spend hours and hours of _my_ precious time creating a
page why should program for
everyone to enjoy, why is it so hard to spend just a few extra seconds of _your_ time letting my ads load (and ignoring them). I get $.01 on many of the ads displayed even if you don't pay attention to them. It should be a token of gratitude for the people who do the work that you enjoy.
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com
Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
Ok, here's a solution: stop using banner ad gifs and switch to text based banner ads. That is, have an HTML table element formatted to stand out, with nothing but text in it. That'll take hardly any bandwidth, it'll be difficult to block, it'll show up in Lynx, and people can still choose not to read it. I subscribe to a couple of joke-a-day type email lists and they both use this technique: text and a hyper-link. I don't bother reading them, but I don't mind receiving them. Everyone's a winner... :-) P.S. But please, no <blink>tags!</blink>. wwwoffle filters those out!
Derek, You read my mind! :-) I'm planning some kind of script to block "non-paying" customers. I understand your situation, we have unlimited
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Derek Fountain wrote:
Ok, here's a solution: stop using banner ad gifs and switch to text based banner ads.
I don't particularly mind banner ads, I can ignore them. (They are an annoyance on a slow link, though, so please keep them fairly small. Remember, they count as part of your page's download time, and if the user gives you ten seconds he's being generous.) What I absolutely despise is ads that open in a new browser window. If I find that a site uses these routinely, I simply never visit that site. If there get to be too many of them for me to remember easily, I'll install filtering software. -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
Don,
What I absolutely despise is ads that open in a new browser window. If I find that a site uses these routinely, I simply never visit that site. If there
Great! I don't use the pop-up ads (I don't like 'em either), but I like the way you avoid them - you simple don't visit the sites. This tells the site, you don't like pop-ups - if enough stop coming, they may switch to other methods. This is how I think people who don't like any ads should avoid them too. -Tim ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Butler Universal Networks Information Tech. Consultant Christian Web Services Since 1996 ICQ #12495932 AIM: Uninettm An Authorized IPSwitch Reseller tbutler@uninetsolutions.com http://www.uninetsolutions.com ===================== "Solutions that Work" =====================
get to be too many of them for me to remember easily, I'll install filtering software.
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com
Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
Derek, That is certainly a good idea, however I do not create the ad media. :-( A company called Burst! Media hosts the ad server, and finds adverts for me (the advertiser gets the say on what type of ad banner - HTML/Java/Shockwave (Rich Media) or GIF). I could do it myself, but wouldn't sell 1/4 as much - you have to be really of good size to do it yourself on ads. However, I do have some "special offer" text ads at the bottom of each page, but they aren't nearly as effective. -Tim ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Butler Universal Networks Information Tech. Consultant Christian Web Services Since 1996 ICQ #12495932 AIM: Uninettm An Authorized IPSwitch Reseller tbutler@uninetsolutions.com http://www.uninetsolutions.com ===================== "Solutions that Work" =====================
-----Original Message----- From: fountai@hursley.ibm.com [mailto:fountai@hursley.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 2:59 AM To: SuSE English Subject: Re: [SLE] Re: Alternative Web Browser
Ok, here's a solution: stop using banner ad gifs and switch to text based banner ads. That is, have an HTML table element formatted to stand out, with nothing but text in it. That'll take hardly any bandwidth, it'll be difficult to block, it'll show up in Lynx, and people can still choose not to read it. I subscribe to a couple of joke-a-day type email lists and they both use this technique: text and a hyper-link. I don't bother reading them, but I don't mind receiving them. Everyone's a winner... :-)
P.S. But please, no <blink>tags!</blink>. wwwoffle filters those out!
Derek, You read my mind! :-) I'm planning some kind of script to block "non-paying" customers. I understand your situation, we have unlimited
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com
Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
Derek Fountain wrote:
Tim, the world doesn't all work like your part of it. In England, and most of Europe, we have to pay for our telephone calls. We also don't have high bandwidth connections for the most part - we tend to use 34K or 56K modems. Most pages that carry banner ads tend to pack the ads on, and each one is often an animated GIF which takes several seconds to download. Seriously, downloading all the banner ads on a few pages of a news site packed with them will cost me an appreciable amount of money: not 0.1p, but 2 or 3p. Over a period of a few weeks that represents a couple of beers. WWWoffle is written by an Englishman. Scratch an itch and all that...
And if you had to pay to log onto the site, as well as paying for the time on-line (but without the ads), would you prefer that scenario? I know I wouldn't :-) Here in the Land of Oz we mostly use dial-up access as well, so I fully understand your point - but (there's always a "but") I put up with the ads because I am after the content on sites like that run by Tim. As a businessman myself, I know there is truly no such thing as a free lunch, someone pays in the end. I would far prefer that to be a business trying to promote their product, than a poor bugger like me trying to find some elusive bit of software. One of the reasons I use a lot of "smaller" pages like Tims' is that the amount of ads is NOT overwhelming, like some of the "major" sites
Had banner ad users limited the number of ads they use, and kept the sizes down so they were much less offensive to download, maybe people wouldn't be so hostile to them.
Yep, and revenue would be down as a result, so costs would have to be met elsewhere.
Bit late now. Ad blockers are part of the 'net, and people such as yourself are going to have to find a new business model.
Yep, charge the user
I can see it happening: content will only be sent by the server if the ads are sent too. Hmmm. I feel an Apache module coming on... ;-)
It could come to that!!! -- Regards Don Hansford ECKYTECH COMPUTING Surfing the Net (without crashing) With SuSE 6.4 Linux (Thanx Linus!) "Microsoft democratised the computer market and served as a catalyst in making computers available to everybody. Later, however, they did as many revolutionaries do -- they became dictators. History has taught us the inevitable fate of dictators." -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
And if you had to pay to log onto the site, as well as paying for the time on-line (but without the ads), would you prefer that scenario? I know I wouldn't :-)
Yes, actually. If the content of a site is, in fact, for sale, the site owner should say so. Then I know where I stand. Either I pay directly through subscription, or indirectly, via my bandwidth when I download ads which someone else is paying the site owner to put up. If I want the information on the site, I'll buy it. Otherwise I won't. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is people who put information in a public place, then try to restrict the public's access to it. (An amusing pastime in London is to find a group of tourists who have a guide who shouts a commentary on the sight they are looking at, then go and stand near the group. The guide will normally insist that you move away because you haven't paid to hear them. They get rather irrate when you exercise your right to stand wherever you like in a public place. :-)) -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
Don,
And if you had to pay to log onto the site, as well as paying for the time on-line (but without the ads), would you prefer that scenario? I know I wouldn't :-) Here in the Land of Oz we mostly use dial-up access as well, so I fully understand your point - but (there's always a "but") I put up with the ads because I am after the content on sites like that run by Tim. As a businessman myself, I know there is truly no such thing as a free lunch, someone pays in the end. I would far prefer that to be a business trying to promote their product, than a poor bugger like me trying to find some elusive bit of software.
One of the reasons I use a lot of "smaller" pages like Tims' is that the amount of ads is NOT overwhelming, like some of the "major" sites
I appreciate your appreciation of small web site businesses. It would be really sad if free content became pay content because people couldn't stand a few ads (especially once high speed internet access becomes the norm). I feel strongly about this not only because I need the profits from the ad banners, but also, like you, enjoy many sites that have ads. Thanks for your support!
I can see it happening: content will only be sent by the server if the ads are sent too. Hmmm. I feel an Apache module coming on... ;-)
It could come to that!!!
Perhaps it should be the next piece of software I offer on my ad based site. ;-) If it does, and major ad networks implemented it into the adcode, I bet ad blockers would become overnight lead balloons. -Tim ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Butler Universal Networks Information Tech. Consultant Christian Web Services Since 1996 ICQ #12495932 AIM: Uninettm An Authorized IPSwitch Reseller tbutler@uninetsolutions.com http://www.uninetsolutions.com ===================== "Solutions that Work" ===================== -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
Hi Greg,
If the ads go unnoticed by me even when they show up on a page why should I not filter ads? And aren't you also implying that free (as in free beer) software can only be supported by ads? If that's the case I'd rather pay for software (or web information if I truly need it) than use an app such as Gozilla! or the new, free versions of Eudora.
I didn't imply that free software must be supported by ads, I detest software with ads in them. What I think is fair is that the site you have to
You detest software with ads in them, yet you complain if people view your web pages but block your ads? So how do you differentiate between an app and a web page? What if I make a web page for reading mail say, it's OK to have ads in that? But if I write a stand alone email program, I shouldn't put ads in that (like Eudora does I believe)? I'm not against ads in neither web pages or apps - but I disagree with your complaints when people block them. In fact this debate has just inticed me to find a good ad blocker and install it... ;) Jamie -- ___________________________________________________________________________ Jamie O'Shaughnessy e-mail: joshaugh@uk.oracle.com Oracle Interactive Television Division phone : +44 118 92 45052 ______________________________________________________ __ __ _ __ . __ Opinions are my own and not those of... (__)|-http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
Jamie,
You detest software with ads in them, yet you complain if people view your web pages but block your ads? So how do you differentiate between an app and a web page? What if I make a web page for reading mail say, it's OK to have ads in that? But if I write a stand alone email program, I shouldn't put ads in that (like Eudora does I believe)?
I detested programs with ads in 'em (because I don't like things that go behind my back like lots of adware does. However, I don't try to block them, I just plain don't use them (if I did, I wouldn't block the ads). Simply put, if you don't like ads on the internet, don't visit sites with them. It shouldn't be anyone's choice but the owner of the content on whether or not ads are displayed. If I choose to have ads on my site, and Joe Surfer doesn't like it - more power to him - go somewhere else. By my definition, a program is something running off you PC, a web site something running off the internet. When it's on my PC, I don't want it installing little "helper" apps to load at startup that eat up my system resources. But, if I choose to use that type of program, that is what I deserved to suffer through.
I'm not against ads in neither web pages or apps - but I disagree with your complaints when people block them.
What do you propose then? If people block the ads that pay me the money to create the content they come for, what I am suppose to do? Shut down? Just imagine if all the PERL script sites, like my own, who were supported by ads shut down. You could say good bye to Matt's Script Archive & CGI-Resources.com, Stepweb.com, Selena Sol/Extropia, and many others (including my Uninetsolutions.com). Would the net be happier without Matt's excellent scripts? I surely think not. The thing I emphasize, is it's one thing if it's my hobby (like many open source developers), it's another if it's my job. If it's my job, I have to make money somehow, and it surely doesn't help me to have people use up my bandwidth and give me absolutely nothing but more support requests in return. It costs money to produce software and maintain my site - first time somebody offers to give me enough money to take off my ads - they'd be gone. But no one does, so the ads stay. I could do like Oracle or any other proprietary software company and charge for software (no offense to Oracle), but instead I let visitors pay with ads. Would you rather pay with real cash? Personally, I think that all of the major ad companies (i.e. DoubleClick, 24/7, Flycast, Burst! Media, etc.) should try blocking site access to all of those who block ads. In other words, don't make me pay for what you refuse to. I'm sorry if this sounds like a flame, it isn't intended to. However, as a programmer, I have two choices - (1) quit programming or (2) find a way to make money programming. Ultimately, it comes down to those to choices, and I know which one I like better. My $0.02... -Tim ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Butler Universal Networks Information Tech. Consultant Christian Web Services Since 1996 ICQ #12495932 AIM: Uninettm An Authorized IPSwitch Reseller tbutler@uninetsolutions.com http://www.uninetsolutions.com ===================== "Solutions that Work" =====================
In fact this debate has just inticed me to find a good ad blocker and install it... ;)
Jamie -- __________________________________________________________________ _________ Jamie O'Shaughnessy e-mail: joshaugh@uk.oracle.com Oracle Interactive Television Division phone : +44 118 92 45052 ______________________________________________________ __ __ _ __ . __ Opinions are my own and not those of... (__)|-
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
Here you can find an browser for SVGA libs which can render images on console Do not run it from X ! http://browser.arachne.cz/linux/ - Milan Hromada tel: +421 (0)862 5151 335 ------------------------- -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
You detest software with ads in them, yet you complain if people view your web pages but block your ads? So how do you differentiate between an app and a web page? What if I make a web page for reading mail say, it's OK to have ads in that? But if I write a stand alone email program, I shouldn't put ads in that (like Eudora does I believe)?
I detested programs with ads in 'em (because I don't like things that go behind my back like lots of adware does. However, I don't try to block them, I just plain don't use them (if I did, I wouldn't block the ads). Simply put, if you don't like ads on the internet, don't visit sites with them. It shouldn't be anyone's choice but the owner of the content on whether or not ads are displayed. If I choose to have ads on my site, and Joe Surfer doesn't like it - more power to him - go somewhere else. By my definition, a program is something running off you PC, a web site something running off the internet. When it's on my PC, I don't want it installing little "helper" apps to load at startup that eat up my system resources. But, if I choose to use that type of program, that is what I deserved to suffer through.
I seem to recall you originally said "application", but if you said "program" then it makes little difference. Without being pedantic about exact meanings of words, the concept that you differentiate between doing "something" on a computer that is running locally as opposed to something running on the network is interesting. What if the program is running on another computer but is being displayed (via X) on the machine on your desk? How does this differ to running the program locally? Seriously, on this point I'm not wanting to get into a stupid flame war, just think about it. It makes no difference where something is running. It also makes no difference how the "application" runs, be it a local program, remote X program, java program started via a web page, java program embedded in a web page or just even a HTML based app.
I'm not against ads in neither web pages or apps - but I disagree with your complaints when people block them.
What do you propose then? If people block the ads that pay me the money to create the content they come for, what I am suppose to do? Shut down? Just imagine if all the PERL script sites, like my own, who were supported by ads shut down. You could say good bye to Matt's Script Archive & CGI-Resources.com, Stepweb.com, Selena Sol/Extropia, and many others
I'm sure these sites offer fine services. I don't actually propose anything. What I expect to happen is the market for web advertising will sort itself out anyway - and I wouldn't bet my commercial interests on things staying how they are. If web ads become obtrusive then more people will turn to ad blockers which will cause less web ads, pretty simple. You're right, this could cause some sites to stop functioning. I'm not saying this is a good thing. Hopefully web ads won't become too intrusive and so this won't happen.
The thing I emphasize, is it's one thing if it's my hobby (like many open source developers), it's another if it's my job. If it's my job, I have to make money somehow, and it surely doesn't help me to have people use up my bandwidth and give me absolutely nothing but more support requests in return. It costs money to produce software and maintain my site - first time somebody offers to give me enough money to take off my ads - they'd be gone. But no one does, so the ads stay.
As I said before, I'm not advocating an ad free web, I just believe people should be allowed to run ad blockers. If you want to try to block ad blockers (!) in some way, you're free to do that too. If you think the open source movement is driven by money made from web adverts, then I would disagree with you. There are a great many other ways to be a professional open source developer, web ads is just one - and one I think is probably the least successful.
I could do like Oracle or any other proprietary software company and charge for software (no offense to Oracle), but instead I let visitors pay with ads. Would you rather pay with real cash?
Well, as you can see from the bottom of my mail, my views and any posts I make are nothing at all to do with Oracle Corporation and my views are not the views of Oracle. I restate this just to make things clear. As to the paying for software, where do you think the money comes from that you get from the ads? When a washing powder commercial is on TV, who do you think pays for that? Directly or indirectly the consumer ends up paying. The real people who make money in your case are the ad companies.
Personally, I think that all of the major ad companies (i.e. DoubleClick, 24/7, Flycast, Burst! Media, etc.) should try blocking site access to all of those who block ads. In other words, don't make me pay for what you refuse to. I'm sorry if this sounds like a flame, it isn't intended to. However, as
Cool by me.
My $0.02...
Which may have been better earned by writing some more scripts (or sticking more ads on your site) ;) Jamie -- ___________________________________________________________________________ Jamie O'Shaughnessy e-mail: joshaugh@uk.oracle.com Oracle Interactive Television Division phone : +44 118 92 45052 ______________________________________________________ __ __ _ __ . __ Opinions are my own and not those of... (__)|-http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
Jamie,
I seem to recall you originally said "application", but if you said "program" then it makes little difference. Without being pedantic about exact meanings of words, the concept that you differentiate between doing "something" on a computer that is running locally as opposed to something running on the network is interesting. What if the program is running on another computer but is being displayed (via X) on the machine on your desk? How does this differ to running the program locally?
I should be more specific. Here is what I'm using as definitions for my terms: -Application: Local or Networked full fledged program with access to everything in your system. -Applet/Web site: Networked program/page that in theory shouldn't have full access.
Seriously, on this point I'm not wanting to get into a stupid flame war, just think about it. It makes no difference where something is running. It also makes no difference how the "application" runs, be it a local program, remote X program, java program started via a web page, java program embedded in a web page or just even a HTML based app.
I personal think this all depends. And as I say, I have nothing against the exisitence of adware - I just wouldn't use it. Just like how I expect people who don't like sites with ads to not use those sites rather than find loop holes.
I'm not against ads in neither web pages or apps - but I disagree with your complaints when people block them.
What do you propose then? If people block the ads that pay me the money to create the content they come for, what I am suppose to do? Shut down? Just imagine if all the PERL script sites, like my own, who were supported by ads shut down. You could say good bye to Matt's Script Archive & CGI-Resources.com, Stepweb.com, Selena Sol/Extropia, and many others
I'm sure these sites offer fine services. I don't actually propose anything. What I expect to happen is the market for web advertising will sort itself out anyway - and I wouldn't bet my commercial interests on things staying how they are. If web ads become obtrusive then more people will turn to ad blockers which will cause less web ads, pretty simple. You're right, this could cause some sites to stop functioning. I'm not saying this is a good thing. Hopefully web ads won't become too intrusive and so this won't happen.
Mine sure won't, and neither will most web sites. I surely hope that the ones that do don't ruin it for all.
As I said before, I'm not advocating an ad free web, I just believe people should be allowed to run ad blockers. If you want to try to block ad blockers (!) in some way, you're free to do that too.
Isn't it funny that the webmaster gets to worry about other people's problems? Because some people don't want to see ads, I have to figure out how to avoid that ruining it for myself and everyone else.
If you think the open source movement is driven by money made from web adverts, then I would disagree with you. There are a great many other ways to be a professional open source developer, web ads is just one - and one I think is probably the least successful.
I don't think it is driven by it, although many parts of it are. And if you ask me, isn't it better than having that software move to the dreaded NDA's?
As to the paying for software, where do you think the money comes from that you get from the ads? When a washing powder commercial is on TV, who do you think pays for that? Directly or indirectly the consumer ends up paying. The real people who make money in your case are the ad companies.
True, true. Well, actually, I make more than the ad company because I have an exculivity contract, but yes - the consumer does pay. Isn't that true with everything though? No matter what, there are only a few things that don't come with something that could be called a "price." My argument isn't as much on all of these things as that I think that if you don't like ads, you shouldn't say "well I'll just force my opinion on those sites" - instead you should just avoid sites sponsored by ads. If you don't like the price, don't expect to receive the product.
My $0.02...
Which may have been better earned by writing some more scripts (or sticking more ads on your site) ;)
I've been giving so many of my cents, I'm gonna go broke soon. ;-) Especially on the KDE-General list - Derek can attest to that one... -Tim ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Butler Universal Networks Information Tech. Consultant Christian Web Services Since 1996 ICQ #12495932 AIM: Uninettm An Authorized IPSwitch Reseller tbutler@uninetsolutions.com http://www.uninetsolutions.com ===================== "Solutions that Work" =====================
Jamie -- __________________________________________________________________ _________ Jamie O'Shaughnessy e-mail: joshaugh@uk.oracle.com Oracle Interactive Television Division phone : +44 118 92 45052 ______________________________________________________ __ __ _ __ . __ Opinions are my own and not those of... (__)|-
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com
Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
The whole point of this is pretty simple. People dislike ads on their computer in varying tolerances, from "I love ads and find them useful" to "I want to kill anyone who puts an ad on my screen". Most people fit somewhere between those extremes :) Just as people have varying tolerances to ads, people also have varying means to dealing with them. Some continue to use the "application/service" but choose to ignore the ads, some refuse to use the "application/service" and others choose to use ads blockers or hack the ads out. I'm sure people have other ways of dealing with it. Obviously, the degree to which ads annoy someone determines how they deal with those ads. My point is that I defend the rights for people to choose their own way of dealing with ads. On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
I seem to recall you originally said "application", but if you said "program" then it makes little difference. Without being pedantic about exact meanings of words, the concept that you differentiate between doing "something" on a computer that is running locally as opposed to something running on the network is interesting. What if the program is running on another computer but is being displayed (via X) on the machine on your desk? How does this differ to running the program locally?
I should be more specific. Here is what I'm using as definitions for my terms:
-Application: Local or Networked full fledged program with access to everything in your system. -Applet/Web site: Networked program/page that in theory shouldn't have full access.
I fail to see the relevance of "access to the system" here.
Seriously, on this point I'm not wanting to get into a stupid flame war, just think about it. It makes no difference where something is running. It also makes no difference how the "application" runs, be it a local program, remote X program, java program started via a web page, java program embedded in a web page or just even a HTML based app.
I personal think this all depends. And as I say, I have nothing against the exisitence of adware - I just wouldn't use it. Just like how I expect people who don't like sites with ads to not use those sites rather than find loop holes.
But my point here is to show you the inconsistencies in your approach - you hate ads in "programs that run on your computer and have full access to the system" yet you happily promote ads in "networked based applications that don't have full access to the system". Once you break down the (non-existent) barrier between local and network apps you will see that your arguments are contradictory - you promote what you hate and want people to put up with it or not use it.
shut down. You could say good bye to Matt's Script Archive & CGI-Resources.com, Stepweb.com, Selena Sol/Extropia, and many others
I'm sure these sites offer fine services. I don't actually propose anything. What I expect to happen is the market for web advertising will sort itself out anyway - and I wouldn't bet my commercial interests on things staying how they are. If web ads become obtrusive then more people will turn to ad blockers which will cause less web ads, pretty simple. You're right, this could cause some sites to stop functioning. I'm not saying this is a good thing. Hopefully web ads won't become too intrusive and so this won't happen.
Mine sure won't, and neither will most web sites. I surely hope that the ones that do don't ruin it for all.
Which is all fine and dandy, we agree here.
As I said before, I'm not advocating an ad free web, I just believe people should be allowed to run ad blockers. If you want to try to block ad blockers (!) in some way, you're free to do that too.
Isn't it funny that the webmaster gets to worry about other people's problems? Because some people don't want to see ads, I have to figure out how to avoid that ruining it for myself and everyone else.
I'm afraid that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Let's face it, there are much worse things you have to do - like make sure your site is secure from being hacked - the people who do this are mostly doing it illegally, in a perfect world you wouldn't have to worry about it.
If you think the open source movement is driven by money made from web adverts, then I would disagree with you. There are a great many other ways to be a professional open source developer, web ads is just one - and one I think is probably the least successful.
I don't think it is driven by it, although many parts of it are. And if you ask me, isn't it better than having that software move to the dreaded NDA's?
I wasn't saying it was. I was saying open source developments, in the vast majority of cases, are not funded by web ads.
As to the paying for software, where do you think the money comes from that you get from the ads? When a washing powder commercial is on TV, who do you think pays for that? Directly or indirectly the consumer ends up paying. The real people who make money in your case are the ad companies.
True, true. Well, actually, I make more than the ad company because I have an exculivity contract, but yes - the consumer does pay. Isn't that true
Ah, but they're making money from your hard work by just sitting on their asses.
with everything though? No matter what, there are only a few things that don't come with something that could be called a "price."
Exactly, you were originally claiming that using your site was free from cost. Jamie -- ___________________________________________________________________________ Jamie O'Shaughnessy e-mail: joshaugh@uk.oracle.com Oracle Interactive Television Division phone : +44 118 92 45052 ______________________________________________________ __ __ _ __ . __ Opinions are my own and not those of... (__)|-http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
Hi Jamie,
Obviously, the degree to which ads annoy someone determines how they deal with those ads. My point is that I defend the rights for people to choose their own way of dealing with ads.
And my point is that they don't have that right. Deciding to alter the way a program/web site works (unless it's open source and stated that you can alter or otherwise change the code) to your advantage, and the webmaster's disadvantage is like me coming over to you house and saying "I don't like the color of your house, I'm going to paint it something else." Would you stand for that? Of course not! So why should I have people painting over parts of my e-Realestate? Yes, perhaps that isn't the best example, but it all comes down to the fact that my web site is my property, and it should be none but my right to decide if I have ad banners on it. More importantly, every single hit costs me money, every single one. Did you realize that? So, for every visitor who doesn't view the ad banners, I end up paying his fare. If you owned a book store, you expect them to pay their dues; if you own a computer store, it's the same way. However, people get the wacky concept that it's there right to do what ever they want on the net. No one forces anybody to go to sites with ads, so if you don't like them, don't come. If you don't like ads (not referring to you, but just anybody), don't make me pay for that choice, you yourself should pay. It isn't a right, in my opinion it is a crime. Nearly as bad as hacking, and non less serious than shoplifting. -Tim ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Butler Universal Networks Information Tech. Consultant Christian Web Services Since 1996 ICQ #12495932 AIM: Uninettm An Authorized IPSwitch Reseller tbutler@uninetsolutions.com http://www.uninetsolutions.com ===================== "Solutions that Work" =====================
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
I seem to recall you originally said "application", but if you said "program" then it makes little difference. Without being pedantic about exact meanings of words, the concept that you differentiate between doing "something" on a computer that is running locally as opposed to something running on the network is interesting. What if the program is running on another computer but is being displayed (via X) on the machine on your desk? How does this differ to running the program locally?
I should be more specific. Here is what I'm using as definitions for my terms:
-Application: Local or Networked full fledged program with access to everything in your system. -Applet/Web site: Networked program/page that in theory shouldn't have full access.
I fail to see the relevance of "access to the system" here.
Seriously, on this point I'm not wanting to get into a stupid flame war, just think about it. It makes no difference where something is running. It also makes no difference how the "application" runs, be it a local program, remote X program, java program started via a web page, java program embedded in a web page or just even a HTML based app.
I personal think this all depends. And as I say, I have nothing against the exisitence of adware - I just wouldn't use it. Just like how I expect people who don't like sites with ads to not use those sites rather than find loop holes.
But my point here is to show you the inconsistencies in your approach - you hate ads in "programs that run on your computer and have full access to the system" yet you happily promote ads in "networked based applications that don't have full access to the system". Once you break down the (non-existent) barrier between local and network apps you will see that your arguments are contradictory - you promote what you hate and want people to put up with it or not use it.
shut down. You could say good bye to Matt's Script Archive & CGI-Resources.com, Stepweb.com, Selena Sol/Extropia, and many others
I'm sure these sites offer fine services. I don't actually propose anything. What I expect to happen is the market for web advertising will sort itself out anyway - and I wouldn't bet my commercial interests on things staying how they are. If web ads become obtrusive then more people will turn to ad blockers which will cause less web ads, pretty simple. You're right, this could cause some sites to stop functioning. I'm not saying this is a good thing. Hopefully web ads won't become too intrusive and so this won't happen.
Mine sure won't, and neither will most web sites. I surely hope that the ones that do don't ruin it for all.
Which is all fine and dandy, we agree here.
As I said before, I'm not advocating an ad free web, I just believe people should be allowed to run ad blockers. If you want to try to block ad blockers (!) in some way, you're free to do that too.
Isn't it funny that the webmaster gets to worry about other people's problems? Because some people don't want to see ads, I have to figure out how to avoid that ruining it for myself and everyone else.
I'm afraid that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Let's face it, there are much worse things you have to do - like make sure your site is secure from being hacked - the people who do this are mostly doing it illegally, in a perfect world you wouldn't have to worry about it.
If you think the open source movement is driven by money made from web adverts, then I would disagree with you. There are a great many other ways to be a professional open source developer, web ads is just one - and one I think is probably the least successful.
I don't think it is driven by it, although many parts of it are. And if you ask me, isn't it better than having that software move to the dreaded NDA's?
I wasn't saying it was. I was saying open source developments, in the vast majority of cases, are not funded by web ads.
As to the paying for software, where do you think the money comes from that you get from the ads? When a washing powder commercial is on TV, who do you think pays for that? Directly or indirectly the consumer ends up paying. The real people who make money in your case are the ad companies.
True, true. Well, actually, I make more than the ad company because I have an exculivity contract, but yes - the consumer does pay. Isn't that true
Ah, but they're making money from your hard work by just sitting on their asses.
with everything though? No matter what, there are only a few things that don't come with something that could be called a "price."
Exactly, you were originally claiming that using your site was free from cost.
Jamie -- __________________________________________________________________ _________ Jamie O'Shaughnessy e-mail: joshaugh@uk.oracle.com Oracle Interactive Television Division phone : +44 118 92 45052 ______________________________________________________ __ __ _ __ . __ Opinions are my own and not those of... (__)|-
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
Hi Jamie,
Obviously, the degree to which ads annoy someone determines how they deal with those ads. My point is that I defend the rights for people to choose their own way of dealing with ads.
And my point is that they don't have that right. Deciding to alter the way
Of course they do, since when was it illegal?
a program/web site works (unless it's open source and stated that you can alter or otherwise change the code) to your advantage, and the webmaster's disadvantage is like me coming over to you house and saying "I don't like the color of your house, I'm going to paint it something else." Would you stand for that? Of course not! So why should I have people painting over parts of my e-Realestate?
What complete bollocks. It's more like me sticking black tape over areas of my TV screen - you say I don't have the right to do that as it means I can't see your adverts.
Yes, perhaps that isn't the best example, but it all comes down to the fact that my web site is my property, and it should be none but my right to decide if I have ad banners on it. More importantly, every single hit costs
So you claim that people who view your site should only be able to view it as you intended and in no way should it be displayed in any other way? What if the browser displays it slightly different than the browser you used, say a different font? What if someone was using a text mode browser and so couldn't see your adverts?
me money, every single one. Did you realize that? So, for every visitor who doesn't view the ad banners, I end up paying his fare. If you owned a book store, you expect them to pay their dues; if you own a computer store, it's the same way. However, people get the wacky concept that it's there right to do what ever they want on the net. No one forces anybody to go to sites with ads, so if you don't like them, don't come. If you don't like ads (not referring to you, but just anybody), don't make me pay for that choice, you yourself should pay. It isn't a right, in my opinion it is a crime. Nearly as bad as hacking, and non less serious than shoplifting.
You are so completely and utterly wrong here. If your arguments stood up in any way, why would sites like Yahoo put up with the countless apps that take their data - stock quotes, news, etc. and display them in tickers and the like. If you're arguments had any validity whatsoever, do you not think companies such as Yahoo would have lobbied to get rid of such apps, make ad blocking illegal and restrict their sites to non-text mode browsers? Jamie -- ___________________________________________________________________________ Jamie O'Shaughnessy e-mail: joshaugh@uk.oracle.com Oracle Interactive Television Division phone : +44 118 92 45052 ______________________________________________________ __ __ _ __ . __ Opinions are my own and not those of... (__)|-http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
I really wish that everyone involved in dragging this way off-topic discussion thread would have been so kind as to taken it off the SuSE Linux mailing list, as it has gone way beyond talking about web browsers to the legal, etc. issuses about the proliferation of ads and other such stuff on web pages. Matthew R. Hamilton / Senior Associate ENS Installation/Integration Engineer Convergys Corporation On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Jamie O'Shaughnessy wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
Hi Jamie,
Obviously, the degree to which ads annoy someone determines how they deal with those ads. My point is that I defend the rights for people to choose their own way of dealing with ads.
And my point is that they don't have that right. Deciding to alter the way
Of course they do, since when was it illegal?
a program/web site works (unless it's open source and stated that you can alter or otherwise change the code) to your advantage, and the webmaster's disadvantage is like me coming over to you house and saying "I don't like the color of your house, I'm going to paint it something else." Would you stand for that? Of course not! So why should I have people painting over parts of my e-Realestate?
What complete bollocks. It's more like me sticking black tape over areas of my TV screen - you say I don't have the right to do that as it means I can't see your adverts.
Yes, perhaps that isn't the best example, but it all comes down to the fact that my web site is my property, and it should be none but my right to decide if I have ad banners on it. More importantly, every single hit costs
So you claim that people who view your site should only be able to view it as you intended and in no way should it be displayed in any other way? What if the browser displays it slightly different than the browser you used, say a different font? What if someone was using a text mode browser and so couldn't see your adverts?
me money, every single one. Did you realize that? So, for every visitor who doesn't view the ad banners, I end up paying his fare. If you owned a book store, you expect them to pay their dues; if you own a computer store, it's the same way. However, people get the wacky concept that it's there right to do what ever they want on the net. No one forces anybody to go to sites with ads, so if you don't like them, don't come. If you don't like ads (not referring to you, but just anybody), don't make me pay for that choice, you yourself should pay. It isn't a right, in my opinion it is a crime. Nearly as bad as hacking, and non less serious than shoplifting.
You are so completely and utterly wrong here. If your arguments stood up in any way, why would sites like Yahoo put up with the countless apps that take their data - stock quotes, news, etc. and display them in tickers and the like. If you're arguments had any validity whatsoever, do you not think companies such as Yahoo would have lobbied to get rid of such apps, make ad blocking illegal and restrict their sites to non-text mode browsers?
Jamie -- ___________________________________________________________________________ Jamie O'Shaughnessy e-mail: joshaugh@uk.oracle.com Oracle Interactive Television Division phone : +44 118 92 45052 ______________________________________________________ __ __ _ __ . __ Opinions are my own and not those of... (__)|-
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Jamie O'Shaughnessy wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
Hi Jamie,
Obviously, the degree to which ads annoy someone determines how they deal with those ads. My point is that I defend the rights for people to choose their own way of dealing with ads.
And my point is that they don't have that right. Deciding to alter the way
Of course they do, since when was it illegal?
OT, but interesting in regard to this point, are some stunts recently pulled in a political contest in this area. I'll neglect to mention names, what race, or even what area, because they aren't relevant. Campaign A put up a web site including certain pictures (of theirs) which, in context, were complimentary to their candidate. Campaign B put up a web site and used the SAME pictures in a different context which was uncomplimentary to candidate A. This potentially could be a copyright violation; note however that they did not even do so much as copy the pictures - they merely incorporated the images directly from Campaign A's web site. (Permission? Do YOU think they asked for permission?) Upon discovering this, Campaign A replaced the pictures with other material, specifically some multimedia content which was also complimentary to their candidate - and in addition caused the specific pages of interest on Campaign B's site to make no sense at all. Soon thereafter, Campaign B publically accused Campaign A of altering Campaign B's web site, specifically because of this action. Comments? -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
Hi Jamie,
Obviously, the degree to which ads annoy someone determines how they deal with those ads. My point is that I defend the rights for people to choose their own way of dealing with ads.
And my point is that they don't have that right. Deciding to alter
Comments? hum ... am I on a SuSE list? Thomas Beauchamp -----Original Message----- From: Don Edwards [mailto:warrl@blarg.net] Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2000 12:18 AM To: Jamie O'Shaughnessy; Timothy R. Butler Cc: SuSE Mailing List Subject: RE: [SLE] Ad Blocking (was Alternative Web Browser) On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Jamie O'Shaughnessy wrote: the way
Of course they do, since when was it illegal?
OT, but interesting in regard to this point, are some stunts recently pulled in a political contest in this area. I'll neglect to mention names, what race, or even what area, because they aren't relevant. Campaign A put up a web site including certain pictures (of theirs) which, in context, were complimentary to their candidate. Campaign B put up a web site and used the SAME pictures in a different context which was uncomplimentary to candidate A. This potentially could be a copyright violation; note however that they did not even do so much as copy the pictures - they merely incorporated the images directly from Campaign A's web site. (Permission? Do YOU think they asked for permission?) Upon discovering this, Campaign A replaced the pictures with other material, specifically some multimedia content which was also complimentary to their candidate - and in addition caused the specific pages of interest on Campaign B's site to make no sense at all. Soon thereafter, Campaign B publically accused Campaign A of altering Campaign B's web site, specifically because of this action. Comments? -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/ <HR> <UL> <LI>application/x-pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s </UL> N§²æìržzǧué[h²ë )îÅ맲æìržzˬyÊ&ÚuØÚÊ&©Ý²Ç§ué[h²ë )îÅè^.±ç([(rØ^¶m§ÿðà .±ç(ô®Š+·ðèïÅ <!-- body="end" --> <HR> <HR> <SMALL> This archive was generated by hypermail 2a23 : Sat Jun 17 2000 - 17:43:38 PDT</EM> </EM> </SMALL> </BODY> </HTML>
Just receiveing the odd messages, here and then? what's up? Thomas -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
"Timothy R. Butler" wrote:
Hi Jamie,
Obviously, the degree to which ads annoy someone determines how they deal with those ads. My point is that I defend the rights for people to choose their own way of dealing with ads.
And my point is that they don't have that right. Deciding to alter the way a program/web site works (unless it's open source and stated that you can alter or otherwise change the code) to your advantage, and the webmaster's disadvantage is like me coming over to you house and saying "I don't like the color of your house, I'm going to paint it something else." Would you stand for that? Of course not! So why should I have people painting over parts of my e-Realestate?
Tim, your increasingly desperate efforts to get your point across are becoming ridiculous. Blocking ads like repainting someone's house? Do me a favour... I fully accept your right to insist that people who view your site view the lot - ads and all. Put a text banner at the top of each page which states your conditions for viewing the site and telling people you don't or can't accept the terms to leave without viewing the content. Enforce this with technology if you can. But at the end of the day you must accept that if you are putting content in a public place, the public are going to choose to view it under their own terms. If you don't like that, make it a closed site where people accept your terms when they register. -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
Derek,
Tim, your increasingly desperate efforts to get your point across are becoming ridiculous. Blocking ads like repainting someone's house? Do me a favour...
Granted that is a little extreme, but it was the best analogy I could think of at the time.
I fully accept your right to insist that people who view your site view the lot - ads and all. Put a text banner at the top of each page which states your conditions for viewing the site and telling people you don't or can't accept the terms to leave without viewing the content. Enforce this with technology if you can.
If it becomes a problem, I might put such a banner, however I hate to purposely make the site look unfriendly even to those viewing banners. I very well may create an ad-blocker blocker though. For the moment it isn't a problem, I just don't like the fact that people don't realize that by blocking the ads _I_ must pay for their trip to my site. I hope this never becomes a serious problem... -Tim ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Butler Universal Networks Information Tech. Consultant Christian Web Services Since 1996 ICQ #12495932 AIM: Uninettm An Authorized IPSwitch Reseller tbutler@uninetsolutions.com http://www.uninetsolutions.com ===================== "Solutions that Work" =====================
But at the end of the day you must accept that if you are putting content in a public place, the public are going to choose to view it under their own terms. If you don't like that, make it a closed site where people accept your terms when they register.
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com
Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
Tim. If I am to follow your logic here then would you say that users DO NOT have the right to dissable cookies, javascript, activeX controls and java applets in their web browsers? Or better yet are not allowed to use anything other than the latest and greatest versions of the most popular web browsers (even though I just happen to run Communicator 4.73 and IE 5.5) to view web your web pages? Or how about those poor individuals who might be at work and have an old Sun SPARC5 that can only handle 256 colors, and you have a web page with all the eye-candy in the world in it, including some pluggins that just do not exist on that particular platform? Are ALL these people in the wrong? I certanly hope not. I will say your analogy is one of the worst I have heard in a long time. Yeah your web site is YOUR property, however the users of the web browsers are not MODIFYING your "e-Realestate" ( Now thats a term I thought I would NEVER hear, e-this, e-that what next ) or HTML documents. To do that they would have to accually log on to the server and EDIT the source files (whatever they might be). I have in the past dissabled javascript in my web browser because I got tired of idiotic web site designers placing javascript functions in the web page that would pop up multiple sub windows when attempting to leave their site as well as when closing the sub windows. Basicly what you had was approx. 18+ little windows popping up everywhere on the computer desktop just because you followed one link. If I am to use your flawed analogy for this, then it would be like going to your house and when I decide to leave you say I can but only after I have visited X number of other houses (and each one could have the same policy). Since the visitors to your web site are in effect downloading the content to their computer it would now be up to them to view what they do or do not want to view. Don't get me wrong I have nothing against the embedded graphic ad banners in a page those I just choose to ignore and read what I want to. What I personally dislike is the pop-up window ads. I do find it hard to believe that a company would pay just to have the link on your page without getting some business as a direct result of someone using that link. I do not know anything about how the people advertizing on web sites so they just might do that as well as pay a bit more for a sale as a result of a web page ad. People aren't getting the "wacky" concept that they can do whatever they want on "the net", it is that you are now just seeing how upset some people have always been with marketing and advertizing (much in the same way as junk mail in the mail box outside their house). Of course no one forces someone to visit a web site. However there are some sites that are like a black-hole. They do their best to keep you there once you get there. Once I realize a site is one of those I avoid it like the plague. I (and many others) don't like this type of advertizing. Equating blocking ads to hacking or even shoplifting has got to be one of the biggest jokes I have ever heard of. First of all they ARE NOT HACKING your web site. I think you meant to use the term Cracking which is the hacking with a malicious intent. But that is a WHOLE different thread. They aredownloading the entire document and deciding that they only want to view certain pages. As far as your web server knows they viewed the entire document. This IS like going into a store to buy the news paper and not reading the comics or the ads for the latest sale at the local mall. So where in the entire act of visiting the web site and after the content has been downloaded from YOUR server to MY computer and then viewed the way I want shoplifting? Unless you charge people to download each and every page and they find a way to download it without paying then THAT would be stealing. Matthew R. Hamilton Senior Associate ENS - Integration Engineer Convergys Corporation On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
Hi Jamie,
Obviously, the degree to which ads annoy someone determines how they deal with those ads. My point is that I defend the rights for people to choose their own way of dealing with ads.
And my point is that they don't have that right. Deciding to alter the way a program/web site works (unless it's open source and stated that you can alter or otherwise change the code) to your advantage, and the webmaster's disadvantage is like me coming over to you house and saying "I don't like the color of your house, I'm going to paint it something else." Would you stand for that? Of course not! So why should I have people painting over parts of my e-Realestate? Yes, perhaps that isn't the best example, but it all comes down to the fact that my web site is my property, and it should be none but my right to decide if I have ad banners on it. More importantly, every single hit costs me money, every single one. Did you realize that? So, for every visitor who doesn't view the ad banners, I end up paying his fare. If you owned a book store, you expect them to pay their dues; if you own a computer store, it's the same way. However, people get the wacky concept that it's there right to do what ever they want on the net. No one forces anybody to go to sites with ads, so if you don't like them, don't come. If you don't like ads (not referring to you, but just anybody), don't make me pay for that choice, you yourself should pay. It isn't a right, in my opinion it is a crime. Nearly as bad as hacking, and non less serious than shoplifting.
-Tim
----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Butler Universal Networks Information Tech. Consultant Christian Web Services Since 1996 ICQ #12495932 AIM: Uninettm An Authorized IPSwitch Reseller tbutler@uninetsolutions.com http://www.uninetsolutions.com ===================== "Solutions that Work" =====================
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
I seem to recall you originally said "application", but if you said "program" then it makes little difference. Without being pedantic about exact meanings of words, the concept that you differentiate between doing "something" on a computer that is running locally as opposed to something running on the network is interesting. What if the program is running on another computer but is being displayed (via X) on the machine on your desk? How does this differ to running the program locally?
I should be more specific. Here is what I'm using as definitions for my terms:
-Application: Local or Networked full fledged program with access to everything in your system. -Applet/Web site: Networked program/page that in theory shouldn't have full access.
I fail to see the relevance of "access to the system" here.
Seriously, on this point I'm not wanting to get into a stupid flame war, just think about it. It makes no difference where something is running. It also makes no difference how the "application" runs, be it a local program, remote X program, java program started via a web page, java program embedded in a web page or just even a HTML based app.
I personal think this all depends. And as I say, I have nothing against the exisitence of adware - I just wouldn't use it. Just like how I expect people who don't like sites with ads to not use those sites rather than find loop holes.
But my point here is to show you the inconsistencies in your approach - you hate ads in "programs that run on your computer and have full access to the system" yet you happily promote ads in "networked based applications that don't have full access to the system". Once you break down the (non-existent) barrier between local and network apps you will see that your arguments are contradictory - you promote what you hate and want people to put up with it or not use it.
shut down. You could say good bye to Matt's Script Archive & CGI-Resources.com, Stepweb.com, Selena Sol/Extropia, and many others
I'm sure these sites offer fine services. I don't actually propose anything. What I expect to happen is the market for web advertising will sort itself out anyway - and I wouldn't bet my commercial interests on things staying how they are. If web ads become obtrusive then more people will turn to ad blockers which will cause less web ads, pretty simple. You're right, this could cause some sites to stop functioning. I'm not saying this is a good thing. Hopefully web ads won't become too intrusive and so this won't happen.
Mine sure won't, and neither will most web sites. I surely hope that the ones that do don't ruin it for all.
Which is all fine and dandy, we agree here.
As I said before, I'm not advocating an ad free web, I just believe people should be allowed to run ad blockers. If you want to try to block ad blockers (!) in some way, you're free to do that too.
Isn't it funny that the webmaster gets to worry about other people's problems? Because some people don't want to see ads, I have to figure out how to avoid that ruining it for myself and everyone else.
I'm afraid that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Let's face it, there are much worse things you have to do - like make sure your site is secure from being hacked - the people who do this are mostly doing it illegally, in a perfect world you wouldn't have to worry about it.
If you think the open source movement is driven by money made from web adverts, then I would disagree with you. There are a great many other ways to be a professional open source developer, web ads is just one - and one I think is probably the least successful.
I don't think it is driven by it, although many parts of it are. And if you ask me, isn't it better than having that software move to the dreaded NDA's?
I wasn't saying it was. I was saying open source developments, in the vast majority of cases, are not funded by web ads.
As to the paying for software, where do you think the money comes from that you get from the ads? When a washing powder commercial is on TV, who do you think pays for that? Directly or indirectly the consumer ends up paying. The real people who make money in your case are the ad companies.
True, true. Well, actually, I make more than the ad company because I have an exculivity contract, but yes - the consumer does pay. Isn't that true
Ah, but they're making money from your hard work by just sitting on their asses.
with everything though? No matter what, there are only a few things that don't come with something that could be called a "price."
Exactly, you were originally claiming that using your site was free from cost.
Jamie -- __________________________________________________________________ _________ Jamie O'Shaughnessy e-mail: joshaugh@uk.oracle.com Oracle Interactive Television Division phone : +44 118 92 45052 ______________________________________________________ __ __ _ __ . __ Opinions are my own and not those of... (__)|-
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
Hi Tim, try http://muffin.doit.org It may help you in some ways. It is a kind of web filtering and so many options like cookies Monster or snoop and much more!! a student "Matthew R. Hamilton" wrote:
Tim. If I am to follow your logic here then would you say that users DO NOT have the right to dissable cookies, javascript, activeX controls and java applets in their web browsers? Or better yet are not allowed to use anything other than the latest and greatest versions of the most popular web browsers (even though I just happen to run Communicator 4.73 and IE 5.5) to view web your web pages? Or how about those poor individuals who might be at work and have an old Sun SPARC5 that can only handle 256 colors, and you have a web page with all the eye-candy in the world in it, including some pluggins that just do not exist on that particular platform? Are ALL these people in the wrong? I certanly hope not. I will say your analogy is one of the worst I have heard in a long time. Yeah your web site is YOUR property, however the users of the web browsers are not MODIFYING your "e-Realestate" ( Now thats a term I thought I would NEVER hear, e-this, e-that what next ) or HTML documents. To do that they would have to accually log on to the server and EDIT the source files (whatever they might be). I have in the past dissabled javascript in my web browser because I got tired of idiotic web site designers placing javascript functions in the web page that would pop up multiple sub windows when attempting to leave their site as well as when closing the sub windows. Basicly what you had was approx. 18+ little windows popping up everywhere on the computer desktop just because you followed one link. If I am to use your flawed analogy for this, then it would be like going to your house and when I decide to leave you say I can but only after I have visited X number of other houses (and each one could have the same policy). Since the visitors to your web site are in effect downloading the content to their computer it would now be up to them to view what they do or do not want to view. Don't get me wrong I have nothing against the embedded graphic ad banners in a page those I just choose to ignore and read what I want to. What I personally dislike is the pop-up window ads. I do find it hard to believe that a company would pay just to have the link on your page without getting some business as a direct result of someone using that link. I do not know anything about how the people advertizing on web sites so they just might do that as well as pay a bit more for a sale as a result of a web page ad. People aren't getting the "wacky" concept that they can do whatever they want on "the net", it is that you are now just seeing how upset some people have always been with marketing and advertizing (much in the same way as junk mail in the mail box outside their house). Of course no one forces someone to visit a web site. However there are some sites that are like a black-hole. They do their best to keep you there once you get there. Once I realize a site is one of those I avoid it like the plague. I (and many others) don't like this type of advertizing. Equating blocking ads to hacking or even shoplifting has got to be one of the biggest jokes I have ever heard of. First of all they ARE NOT HACKING your web site. I think you meant to use the term Cracking which is the hacking with a malicious intent. But that is a WHOLE different thread. They aredownloading the entire document and deciding that they only want to view certain pages. As far as your web server knows they viewed the entire document. This IS like going into a store to buy the news paper and not reading the comics or the ads for the latest sale at the local mall. So where in the entire act of visiting the web site and after the content has been downloaded from YOUR server to MY computer and then viewed the way I want shoplifting? Unless you charge people to download each and every page and they find a way to download it without paying then THAT would be stealing.
Matthew R. Hamilton Senior Associate ENS - Integration Engineer Convergys Corporation
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
Hi Jamie,
Obviously, the degree to which ads annoy someone determines how they deal with those ads. My point is that I defend the rights for people to choose their own way of dealing with ads.
And my point is that they don't have that right. Deciding to alter the way a program/web site works (unless it's open source and stated that you can alter or otherwise change the code) to your advantage, and the webmaster's disadvantage is like me coming over to you house and saying "I don't like the color of your house, I'm going to paint it something else." Would you stand for that? Of course not! So why should I have people painting over parts of my e-Realestate? Yes, perhaps that isn't the best example, but it all comes down to the fact that my web site is my property, and it should be none but my right to decide if I have ad banners on it. More importantly, every single hit costs me money, every single one. Did you realize that? So, for every visitor who doesn't view the ad banners, I end up paying his fare. If you owned a book store, you expect them to pay their dues; if you own a computer store, it's the same way. However, people get the wacky concept that it's there right to do what ever they want on the net. No one forces anybody to go to sites with ads, so if you don't like them, don't come. If you don't like ads (not referring to you, but just anybody), don't make me pay for that choice, you yourself should pay. It isn't a right, in my opinion it is a crime. Nearly as bad as hacking, and non less serious than shoplifting.
-Tim
----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Butler Universal Networks Information Tech. Consultant Christian Web Services Since 1996 ICQ #12495932 AIM: Uninettm An Authorized IPSwitch Reseller tbutler@uninetsolutions.com http://www.uninetsolutions.com ===================== "Solutions that Work" =====================
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
I seem to recall you originally said "application", but if you said "program" then it makes little difference. Without being pedantic about exact meanings of words, the concept that you differentiate between doing "something" on a computer that is running locally as opposed to something running on the network is interesting. What if the program is running on another computer but is being displayed (via X) on the machine on your desk? How does this differ to running the program locally?
I should be more specific. Here is what I'm using as definitions for my terms:
-Application: Local or Networked full fledged program with access to everything in your system. -Applet/Web site: Networked program/page that in theory shouldn't have full access.
I fail to see the relevance of "access to the system" here.
Seriously, on this point I'm not wanting to get into a stupid flame war, just think about it. It makes no difference where something is running. It also makes no difference how the "application" runs, be it a local program, remote X program, java program started via a web page, java program embedded in a web page or just even a HTML based app.
I personal think this all depends. And as I say, I have nothing against the exisitence of adware - I just wouldn't use it. Just like how I expect people who don't like sites with ads to not use those sites rather than find loop holes.
But my point here is to show you the inconsistencies in your approach - you hate ads in "programs that run on your computer and have full access to the system" yet you happily promote ads in "networked based applications that don't have full access to the system". Once you break down the (non-existent) barrier between local and network apps you will see that your arguments are contradictory - you promote what you hate and want people to put up with it or not use it.
shut down. You could say good bye to Matt's Script Archive & CGI-Resources.com, Stepweb.com, Selena Sol/Extropia, and many others
I'm sure these sites offer fine services. I don't actually propose anything. What I expect to happen is the market for web advertising will sort itself out anyway - and I wouldn't bet my commercial interests on things staying how they are. If web ads become obtrusive then more people will turn to ad blockers which will cause less web ads, pretty simple. You're right, this could cause some sites to stop functioning. I'm not saying this is a good thing. Hopefully web ads won't become too intrusive and so this won't happen.
Mine sure won't, and neither will most web sites. I surely hope that the ones that do don't ruin it for all.
Which is all fine and dandy, we agree here.
As I said before, I'm not advocating an ad free web, I just believe people should be allowed to run ad blockers. If you want to try to block ad blockers (!) in some way, you're free to do that too.
Isn't it funny that the webmaster gets to worry about other people's problems? Because some people don't want to see ads, I have to figure out how to avoid that ruining it for myself and everyone else.
I'm afraid that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Let's face it, there are much worse things you have to do - like make sure your site is secure from being hacked - the people who do this are mostly doing it illegally, in a perfect world you wouldn't have to worry about it.
If you think the open source movement is driven by money made from web adverts, then I would disagree with you. There are a great many other ways to be a professional open source developer, web ads is just one - and one I think is probably the least successful.
I don't think it is driven by it, although many parts of it are. And if you ask me, isn't it better than having that software move to the dreaded NDA's?
I wasn't saying it was. I was saying open source developments, in the vast majority of cases, are not funded by web ads.
As to the paying for software, where do you think the money comes from that you get from the ads? When a washing powder commercial is on TV, who do you think pays for that? Directly or indirectly the consumer ends up paying. The real people who make money in your case are the ad companies.
True, true. Well, actually, I make more than the ad company because I have an exculivity contract, but yes - the consumer does pay. Isn't that true
Ah, but they're making money from your hard work by just sitting on their asses.
with everything though? No matter what, there are only a few things that don't come with something that could be called a "price."
Exactly, you were originally claiming that using your site was free from cost.
Jamie -- __________________________________________________________________ _________ Jamie O'Shaughnessy e-mail: joshaugh@uk.oracle.com Oracle Interactive Television Division phone : +44 118 92 45052 ______________________________________________________ __ __ _ __ . __ Opinions are my own and not those of... (__)|-
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
Matthew,
Tim. If I am to follow your logic here then would you say that users DO NOT have the right to dissable cookies, javascript, activeX controls and java applets in their web browsers? Or better yet are not allowed to use anything other than the latest and greatest versions of the most popular web browsers (even though I just happen to run Communicator 4.73 and IE 5.5) to view web your web pages? Or how about those poor individuals who might be at work and have an old Sun SPARC5 that can only handle 256 colors, and you have a web page with all the eye-candy in the world in it, including some pluggins that just do not exist on that particular platform? Are ALL these people in the wrong? I certanly hope
No, I don't care if it looks horrible on the screen (I mean I do, but it doesn't hurt me if you can only do 256 colors). All I want is for the ad to be transferred from the server to your PC. Send it to /dev/null if you wish, just don't burden me with the cost of you visit.
not. I will say your analogy is one of the worst I have heard in a long time. Yeah your web site is YOUR property, however the users of the web browsers are not MODIFYING your "e-Realestate" ( Now thats a term I thought I would NEVER hear, e-this, e-that what next ) or HTML documents. To do that they would have to accually log on to the server and EDIT the source files (whatever they might be). I have in the past
Then why is it a crime to tamper with the code in Netscape (not Mozilla, but normal Netscape) or RealPlayer or your favorite NDA-licensed product. It isn't changing their code base! But, if you read the license it says you can't reverse compile, disassemble, or otherwise change the code! Hmm... why is a web site different?
dissabled javascript in my web browser because I got tired of idiotic web site designers placing javascript functions in the web page that would pop up multiple sub windows when attempting to leave their site as well as when closing the sub windows. Basicly what you had was approx. 18+ little windows popping up everywhere on the computer desktop just because you followed one link. If I am to use your flawed analogy for this, then it would be like going to your house and when I decide to leave you say I can but only after I have visited X number of other houses (and each one could
I see what you mean about pop ups, they are annoying. However, that could be, in a way considered malicious because it forces you to keep looking at their site even after you close it. Ad banners don't do that in any way.
as pay a bit more for a sale as a result of a web page ad. People aren't getting the "wacky" concept that they can do whatever they want on "the net", it is that you are now just seeing how upset some people have always been with marketing and advertizing (much in the same way as junk mail in the mail box outside their house). Of course no one forces someone to visit a web site. However there are some sites that are like a black-hole. They do their best to keep you there once you get there. Once I realize a site is one of those I avoid it like the plague. I (and many others) don't like this type of advertizing.
As Don excellently said in a previous post, there isn't any free lunches. If you are a business man, you will understand that the money has to come from somewhere be it your pocket or mine or your time. This is much like the way every item in the store must be paid for by you or the store owner.
Equating blocking ads to hacking or even shoplifting has got to be one of the biggest jokes I have ever heard of. First of all they ARE NOT HACKING your web site. I think you meant to use the term Cracking which is the hacking with a malicious intent. But that is a WHOLE
<head repeatly smacks desk> Okay, I'm sorry, CRACKING. <g>
different thread. They aredownloading the entire document and deciding that they only want to view certain pages. As far as your web server knows they viewed the entire document. This IS like going into a store to buy the news paper and not reading the comics or the ads for the latest sale at the local mall. So where in the entire act of visiting the web site and after the content has been downloaded from YOUR server to MY computer and then viewed the way I want shoplifting? Unless you charge people to download each and every page and they find a way to download it without paying then THAT would be stealing.
Removing the ads from a site is like receiving a free newspaper (one of those at your grocer, etc.) and immediately dropping it into some machine that removed every advertisement from it. Only it really wouldn't be like that. The reason is, if you don't take a newspaper or if you do, it's already cost the exact same amount. It'd be more like if that newspaper was custom printed for every person who wanted it. It cost extra to give you a copy, and yet ungratefully you remove the only way that company pays to give it to you. Is that right? I surely wouldn't think so. Remember, if 1,000 people download 30k, the bandwidth would cost me approx. 34 cents (figuring at the rate I can buy extra bandwidth). That would add up pretty quick if you had a popular site, and would even be costly for smaller sites if they made nothing to recoup it. Say a site that gets a thousand page-views a day each with 15k of text and graphics, that would cost $5.14 in bandwidth in just one month. Now, since even a site with a few hundred visitors will get more than that in page views per day, you can see how that would ad up. That isn't even including the many hours of work to produce that content. -Tim ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Butler Universal Networks Information Tech. Consultant Christian Web Services Since 1996 ICQ #12495932 AIM: Uninettm An Authorized IPSwitch Reseller tbutler@uninetsolutions.com http://www.uninetsolutions.com ===================== "Solutions that Work" ===================== -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
"Timothy R. Butler" wrote:
What do you propose then? If people block the ads that pay me the money to create the content they come for, what I am suppose to do? Shut down? Just imagine if all the PERL script sites, like my own, who were supported by ads shut down. You could say good bye to Matt's Script Archive & CGI-Resources.com, Stepweb.com, Selena Sol/Extropia, and many others (including my Uninetsolutions.com). Would the net be happier without Matt's excellent scripts? I surely think not.
Tim, I just logged onto your site (first time ever, so no cache) and I was impressed with the fact that the text content loaded up first (after your header). I scrolled to the bottom of the page and back up again before the ad finished loading. Therefore, if I had been after content only, I probably wouldn't have even seen tha ad, but you would have still got paid for the "view". Two winners!! (By the way, I like what I saw, so I'll be back to your site as soon as I finish reading these 600 emails that have accrued while I've been away, so you'll get another "view" later!) -- Regards Don Hansford ECKYTECH COMPUTING Surfing the Net (without crashing) With SuSE 6.4 Linux (Thanx Linus!) "Microsoft democratised the computer market and served as a catalyst in making computers available to everybody. Later, however, they did as many revolutionaries do -- they became dictators. History has taught us the inevitable fate of dictators." -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
<rant> I have to disagree with you whole heartedly on this one. Junkbuster hides ads, and ads are the price of free information. If you disable ads, you are stealing my and every other ad-based web site's content. If everyone disabled ads, there would be a lot less free information on the web. It's just not fair to the people working hard to bring you the content you enjoy.
</rant>
Who says we are to enjoy sites with adverts. There is far too much tinsel, flashing banners, and razzmatazz on the Web. This thread touches on an important aspect of the internet. Another one is the use of "cookies". I remember with pleasure the days when television and broadcasting (in the UK) were free from such pollution. Now even the BBC isn't clean. I prefer to seek information from sources such as mailing lists and the usenet. The ones sponsored by universities are often best. I have rarely found very much that is worth-while or authoritative on trivial web sites. Moreover, the better ones tend to be free. If we can get good software from the Open Source movement, why should we have to suffer adverts, or worse still cookies. I always delete them. I like the idea of an Alternative Web Browser that rejects adverts, and better still, puts advertisers out of business. Long live Junkbuster. -- Geoff Bagley -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
participants (13)
-
donh＠halenet.com.au -
ethant＠pacificnet.net -
fountai＠hursley.ibm.com -
geoff＠gcbagley.demon.co.uk -
jcm＠bigskytel.com -
joshaugh＠uk.oracle.com -
matth＠ghoul.techapp.com -
milan＠soso.elas.sk -
omicron＠pes.edu -
puparuss＠home.com -
tbutler＠uninetsolutions.com -
thomas＠noproblem.net -
warrl＠blarg.net