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/